codebook.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 states the tool closes a view and returns to a canvas, which implies a UI navigation action, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to unsaved changes in the CodeBook, or if it triggers side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and outcome without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action and result, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., side effects, permissions) and usage guidelines. For a UI navigation tool in a workflow environment, more context on when and why to use it would improve completeness.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as no additional semantic information is needed beyond the schema's completeness.

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 ('Close') and the target ('CodeBook view'), and specifies the outcome ('return to workflow canvas'). It distinguishes from siblings like codebook.open, codebook.isOpen, and codebook.getState by focusing on closing rather than opening, checking, or retrieving state. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 usage when a CodeBook view is open and the user wants to return to the workflow canvas, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites (e.g., CodeBook must be open), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools are mentioned. This leaves the agent with minimal contextual guidance.

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