computer_close_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'close' but does not disclose side effects, such as whether the window is destroyed or just hidden, whether confirmation is required, or if unsaved changes are discarded. This is a significant gap for a destructive action.

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, a single sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. While it lacks detail, the brevity is appropriate for such a simple tool; it does not waste words.

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 that this is a mutation tool (closing a window) with no annotations and no behavioral description, the description is incomplete. An agent may need to know if the operation is reversible, what happens to the window handle, or any prerequisites. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of behavior context. The tool is simple, but the stakes (closing a window) warrant more detail.

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 100% (window_id is described as 'Window identifier'), so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter name, but since coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Close a window.' It is direct and unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools that also manipulate windows, such as minimize_window or activate_window, though the verb 'close' is distinct enough for basic differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., window must be active), no indication of when closing is appropriate, and no mention of alternatives like minimize or hide. The sibling list includes many window-related tools, but the description gives no routing hints.

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