onda_pane_close

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of falling back to the active pane when no ID is given. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., terminating associated terminal sessions) or error handling for invalid IDs, which would improve transparency.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, and the optional behavior is clearly and concisely explained.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the optional parameter behavior. It lacks details about return values, failure modes, or side effects, but these are less critical given the low complexity. It is reasonably complete for its scope.

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 already fully describes the 'id' parameter with 100% coverage, including the note to omit it to close the active pane. The description essentially repeats this schema information without adding new meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('close') and a specific resource ('pane by ID'), and clearly explains the fallback to closing the active pane. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pane_split or pane_focus, which have different actions.

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 description gives a clear context for when to use the tool (closing a specific pane or the active pane) but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions. Since sibling tools like tab_close and terminal_kill exist, some guidance on choosing this over those would strengthen it, but the behavior is understandable.

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