close_framing

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered and closing a presentation window does not contradict a read-only hint. The description adds the lifecycle context (it closes the window from show_framing), but says nothing about error/idempotency behavior when no window exists. Adequate but not rich.

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 zero filler: the action and its target are stated immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with zero parameters the description covers the essentials. The only minor gap is unstated behavior on a stale or already-closed window, which slightly keeps it from a 5.

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 there is no parameter semantics to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. There is no ambiguity about what to pass, since the target window is implied by the show_framing pairing.

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 (close) plus the exact resource it acts on (the framing browser window opened by show_framing). By naming the sibling tool that created the window, it lets an agent distinguish this from the many other read/list siblings in the set.

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 makes the usage condition clear by tying it to show_framing's output ('the window opened by show_framing'), so an agent knows this is the teardown counterpart. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or what happens if no window is open, so it doesn't reach the explicit alternatives/exclusion bar.

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