ruyi_browser_quit

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral nuance: for port-takeover external browsers, it only disconnects and does not close the process. This goes beyond the tool name's implication and helps set expectations.

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, well-structured sentence with a semicolon that separates two scenarios. It is front-loaded with the main action and provides the exception in a compact format. Every word 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 has no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose, the description covers all essential information: what happens in both MCP-started and external-browser cases. It is complete for an agent to know exactly what to expect.

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 no parameters, and the schema is empty. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds useful behavioral context about the two operation modes, which compensates for the lack of parameter-related details.

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 tool's action: closing a browser started by MCP and cleaning state. It also distinguishes the behavior for externally attached browsers (disconnect only), which differentiates it from sibling tools like ruyi_close_page.

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 this tool (when needing to quit the browser) and explicitly contrasts behavior based on how the browser was started. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the distinction between MCP-started and external browsers serves as practical usage guidance.

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