quit_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does state that force quits 'without saving', which is a meaningful behavioral detail. However, it does not explain what a normal quit does (e.g., whether it prompts to save), what happens if the app is not running, or any error/return behavior. This is partial but not comprehensive.

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: a single sentence followed by a clear Args block. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the basic action and parameter semantics. However, it lacks usage context (e.g., when to use vs. 'hide_app') and omits behavioral details like return values (though an output schema exists). It is minimally viable but not fully complete given the sibling tools and lack of annotations.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions for either parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by providing an Args section explaining 'app_name' as the name of the application and 'force' as a flag to quit without saving. This adds meaningful context that the schema alone lacks, though not deeply detailed.

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 ('Quit an application') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'launch_app' and 'hide_app' by explicitly indicating termination, not launching or hiding. The tool name 'quit_app' is effectively clarified.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'hide_app' (which hides without terminating) or 'launch_app'. The description simply states what it does but gives no context about prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or when to avoid it.

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