Close the annotation browser to end the session, with all marks preserved and saved on disk.
Close the annotation browser. Marks are kept on disk.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "annotate_close"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose an important side-effect: 'Marks are kept on disk,' which assures persistence. However, it does not mention idempotency, whether all browser instances are closed, or any other behavioral traits. The single guarantee is useful but leaves gaps.
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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences, each providing distinct value. 'Close the annotation browser' states the action, and 'Marks are kept on disk' clarifies a key behavioral guarantee. There is zero irrelevant content.
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 no-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a critical side-effect. It could be improved with a note about idempotency or what happens if already closed, but the core context is sufficiently provided.
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, and the schema already covers this (100% coverage trivially). The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Per rubric, zero parameters yields a baseline of 4.
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 a specific action with a specific resource: 'Close the annotation browser.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like annotate_open and annotate_clear. The purpose is immediately obvious and 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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies closure after annotation work, but does not provide context, exclusions, or mention of sibling tools. The description does not help an agent decide between this and, say, annotate_clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.