Kill a window

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at destructiveness via 'Use with care,' but does not mention that the operation is irreversible, that it will terminate processes or close the window's content, or that a confirm parameter must be true for it to proceed. The description is too vague to prepare the agent for the tool's side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at two short sentences with no fluff. 'Use with care' is a minimal warning that adds a bit of caution, though it could be more specific. It is well-structured and front-loaded, but the generic warning prevents a perfect score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens when a window is killed (e.g., whether the session closes, processes are terminated), nor does it mention the confirmation requirement or any side effects. The schema covers parameters, but the description leaves major behavioral gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter details. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it only restates the tool's action. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, but does not exceed it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Close a tmux window') and resource (window), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like kill_session and kill_pane. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or why this tool exists beyond the obvious from its name, so it falls short of a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only additional text is 'Use with care,' which is a warning rather than usage context. No prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios are provided, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.