Close the current tab

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

The description adds a behavioral note beyond the destructiveHint annotation: 'The browser itself is left running — Blinkwire does not own it.' This clarifies that the browser process persists after the tab closes, which is useful context. It does not contradict the annotations, and it provides a meaningful insight into the side effects of the operation.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable behavioral note without excess. Every word earns its place, making it a model of conciseness.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly: the action (close current tab) and the key side effect (browser stays running). There are no missing prerequisites, return values, or error conditions that would leave an agent uncertain. The destructive annotation is consistent with the description, so no additional context is necessary.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description correctly omits parameter details since there are none. The baseline score for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add anything further about parameters.

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 the current tab' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other browser tools. It unambiguously identifies what is being closed and the scope (current tab), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 usage is implied by the tool's name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., browser_tabs to list tabs first) or when not to use it. It provides no context about prerequisites or scenarios where closing a tab is appropriate, but the intent is clear enough for a simple action.

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