chatgpt_close_browser

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool closes a persistent dedicated browser, which is a significant side effect. However, it does not mention consequences such as unsaved data, impact on ongoing tasks, or how to restart the browser, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the purpose and then add the crucial usage condition. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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 parameterless tool whose sole action is to close a browser, the description is largely complete: it states what is closed and when to invoke it. It lacks any mention of return values or post-close state, but given the simplicity of the operation and absence of parameters/output schema, the context is adequately covered.

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 description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The schema coverage is effectively 100% because there is nothing to document, so the baseline of 4 applies without further need for elaboration.

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 specific action ('close') and the target resource ('ChatGPT MCP's dedicated resident browser'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like chatgpt_browser_lifecycle by specifying a dedicated close operation with a unique scope.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('only when the user explicitly requests to close'), providing a clear trigger and implying it should not be called otherwise. It does not name alternative tools, but the 'only when' condition is sufficiently restrictive for a simple close operation.

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