quit_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description thoroughly discloses behavior: clean quit, immediate return of 200, delayed exit ~250ms later, destructive nature (no auto-restart). No contradictions.

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—two sentences—and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence provides necessary information without fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return value (200) and the exit timing. For a simple quit tool, this is complete and sufficient.

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 parameters with 100% coverage. Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter information; baseline 4 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 clearly states the tool quits Windy Word cleanly. The verb 'Quit' and resource 'Windy Word' are specific. Although it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like restart_app, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 instructs to get user confirmation before calling, which is a clear usage guideline. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but for a destructive action this is sufficient.

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