browser_close_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it merely states 'close specified page'. It does not mention consequences such as whether closing the current page switches to another, whether the index is zero-based, or any irreversible effects. This is a destructive operation with minimal safety disclosure.

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 concise sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It earns its place minimally, yet it sacrifices clarity for brevity. The structure is clean but misses crucial details about the parameter and behavior.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description is too thin for reliable use. It lacks essential context about how to identify the page, what happens after closing, and any side effects. Given the destructive nature, more detail is required for safe operation.

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 a single parameter `index` of type number, but neither the schema nor the description explains its meaning (e.g., zero-based page index, tab order, or internal identifier). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should have compensated, but it stays silent. The agent cannot determine what value to supply.

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 '关闭指定页面' clearly identifies the action (close) and resource (specified page), and the parameter `index` in the schema indicates which page. It distinguishes from `browser_close` which likely closes the entire browser. However, it could be more explicit about the page being identified by index.

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 versus alternatives like `browser_close`, `browser_new_page`, or `browser_switch_page`. The description does not mention any prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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