關閉內建瀏覽器

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a behavior beyond the name, that login sessions persist in the profile directory and are reused later, which tells the agent this is not a session-destroying call. It says nothing about what happens to in-flight requests, whether the call is idempotent, or whether the browser must currently be open.

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?

Two short sentences with the action first and the side-effect note second. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema action tool, the description covers what it does and the main state consequence. It is slightly thin on error/idempotency behavior and on explicit routing against webchat_logout and webchat_release, but nothing critical is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Close the built-in browser cleanly.' An agent knows exactly what the tool does. However, it never distinguishes itself from close-sounding siblings like webchat_release or webchat_logout beyond the implicit hint that sessions survive.

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 when-to-use statement or alternatives clause. The note that login sessions stay saved implies this is the non-destructive counterpart to webchat_logout, but the agent must infer that routing decision rather than being told it.

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