close_ui

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says the editor is stopped but says nothing about whether unsaved project state is discarded, whether it errors when no editor is open, or what happens to running background services referenced by siblings such as ai_status — significant gaps for a tool that terminates a UI session holding in-progress design work.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — the action and the object are both in the first few words.

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 trivial zero-parameter teardown tool with no output schema, the definition identifies the exact resource being closed and its origin. The only missing piece is the side effect on unsaved editor state, which the absence of annotations leaves undisclosed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the description needs no parameter explanation; the baseline of 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('the web editor'), and explicitly scopes it to the editor instance created by open_ui, which cleanly distinguishes it from every sibling except its counterpart.

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?

The reference to 'started with open_ui' implies the prerequisite pairing and the context in which the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no note about re-opening or state loss.

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