close_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does well by disclosing data loss ('unsaved progress is lost') and the resulting state ('console returns to home screen'). It does not mention permissions, failure modes (e.g., what if no app is running), or whether the close is graceful vs. forced.

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?

Two short clauses with zero waste. The critical warning (unsaved progress is lost) is placed early, and the resulting state is stated succinctly.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the primary action and its side effect, which is adequate. However, it omits any parameter guidance and does not address failure conditions or return behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 does not mention the single parameter 'snapshot_after_ms' at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it provides no explanation of the parameter's purpose (e.g., delay before taking a snapshot) or its default behavior.

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+resource ('Close the running game or app') with clear scope, and distinguishes itself from siblings like launch, home, and uninstall_apps by being the terminator of the current app rather than a launcher or remover.

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 parenthetical '(unsaved progress is lost)' and 'console returns to the home screen' make the context of use clear: terminate the current running app. There is no explicit comparison to alternatives like press/home, but the implication is strong enough that an agent can select this over others.

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