close_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool sends WM_CLOSE and that apps may prompt to save, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what happens if the target is invalid, whether the tool waits for the window to close, or how it handles multiple windows with the same title.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loads the action and mechanism. It earns its place by adding the WM_CLOSE detail and the save-prompt caveat, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

With no annotations, no parameter explanation, and a nullable target, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot reliably know what value to pass for 'target' or what to expect after calling. The output schema exists but the description does not reference it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'target' parameter at all. The schema only shows it is a nullable string with a default of null, leaving the agent to guess whether it is a window title, ID, or handle. The description should have clarified this.

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 states a specific verb ('Close') and resource ('a window'), and mentions the mechanism (WM_CLOSE) and a key behavioral caveat (apps may prompt to save). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like focus_window or move_window, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 implies when to use it: when you want to close a window rather than focus, move, or resize it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like wait_window or toggle_special. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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