釋放背景瀏覽器

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: it closes the background browser and preloaded page, leaves visible login windows untouched, preserves login sessions, and can be automatically restarted by later webchat_ask/warmup calls. These details tell the agent what is destroyed and what persists, which is exactly the behavioral context needed for a release tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then adding restart behavior, edge case, and persistence. Every sentence contributes necessary operational context, with 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?

Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: purpose, when to use, restart semantics, what is left alone, and session persistence. It is complete for a simple, parameterless release tool.

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 no parameters, so the schema is empty and there is nothing for the description to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 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 names the exact resource and action: close the background (headless) browser and its preloaded chat page. It also scopes the operation by noting that the next webchat_ask or webchat_warmup restarts it, that a visible login browser is left alone, and that login sessions persist. This distinguishes it from siblings like webchat_close and webchat_logout.

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 states the condition for use: 'because the user no longer uses any webchat model.' It also indicates what happens next (webchat_ask or webchat_warmup restarts it) and excludes the visible login window. It does not, however, name webchat_close or another tool as the alternative to use when the user wants to close the visible browser, so the when-not guidance is incomplete.

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