suno_close_browser

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool closes the browser session and cleans up resources, which implies a destructive or cleanup operation, but doesn't detail what 'clean up' involves (e.g., closing tabs, clearing cache, terminating processes). It also doesn't mention error handling or side effects, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Close the Playwright browser session') and adds a clarifying detail ('and clean up resources'), making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like what 'clean up resources' entails or potential errors. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, so the description doesn't need to cover them, but it could benefit from more context on usage scenarios.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is efficient. However, it doesn't add any semantic context beyond the schema, such as explaining why no parameters are needed, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 action ('Close') and the resource ('Playwright browser session'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'suno_open_browser' by performing the opposite operation. However, it doesn't specify what 'clean up resources' entails beyond closing the session, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 implies usage after browser-based operations are complete, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. For example, it doesn't mention if this should be called after all browser-dependent tasks or as part of cleanup routines. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on timing or dependencies.

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