app_close

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes that force=true force-terminates and is 'sensitive, needs confirmation under the default policy', which adds meaningful context beyond the schema. The graceful default behavior is implied but not deeply detailed, yet sufficient for most use cases.

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 front-loads the main action and includes the critical force nuance. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the core behavior and the sensitive force option, and the overall scope is clear. The only minor gap is the lack of specification for the app parameter format, but this is not critical for basic selection.

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 zero descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the force parameter ('force=true force-terminates'), adding semantic value. However, the app parameter is only referred to as 'an app' without specifying expected format or identifier, leaving some ambiguity.

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 action 'Quit an app gracefully' with a specific resource ('app'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like app_open and app_list by focusing on termination. It also clarifies the force mode, making the tool's purpose 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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (quitting apps) and the optional force behavior. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like window_manage, the sibling context and wording make the intended use evident. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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