关闭浏览器

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 discloses the shutdown behavior, cleanup of tabs/references, automatic restart on future operations, and loss of unsaved login state. This goes beyond the bare action and provides important operational context for an agent considering this destructive-looking operation.

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 two short, clear paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the action and scope, followed by restart behavior. The second paragraph covers the permission warning about session state. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what happens, the side effects, the auto-restart behavior, and the use case. An agent has all the information needed to decide when to call it and 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 zero parameters and the schema has no properties, so description coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4; the description appropriately does not discuss any 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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: '关闭浏览器实例并清理全部标签页与引用' (close browser instance and clean up all tabs and references), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tab_close that only close individual tabs. It also states the intended use case of releasing resources or clearing session traces.

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: '用于释放系统资源或清除会话痕迹' (used to release system resources or clear session traces). It also warns about side effects (unsaved state lost) and that subsequent operations will auto-restart, giving the agent context for deciding if this is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives like tab_close, but the scope is clear enough.

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