window_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Close') but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this operation is destructive (e.g., if closing a window terminates processes), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or provides confirmation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and parameter details following in a clear, bullet-like format. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description is moderately complete. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., destructiveness) and does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's impact.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'window_id' identifies the window to close and specifies that omitting it targets the current window, clarifying default behavior not evident from the schema alone. With only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it could detail format or constraints.

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 specific action ('Close') and resource ('an iTerm2 window'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'tab_close' or 'session_close' by specifying it operates on windows rather than tabs or sessions. It provides a complete verb+resource combination that 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 provides clear context for usage by explaining that the window_id parameter can be omitted to close the current window, which implies when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., compared to 'tab_close' or 'session_close'), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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