ghost_browser_close

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add meaningful nuance by explaining that launched ghosts are closed while attached ones are only disconnected. Yet it omits important behavior such as what happens to the browser process, whether the operation is destructive, and what the effect of omitting the id parameter is.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the most important distinction is placed in a clear parenthetical. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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?

Despite the tool's simple surface, the description is incomplete for reliable invocation: the only parameter is completely unexplained, and the effect of the operation on the browser ghost or attached browser is only partially clarified. A few more details about the expected id and lifecycle behavior would be needed for the tool to be self-sufficient.

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 schema defines a single 'id' property with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description never mentions the parameter or its role, so an agent cannot tell what value to pass, whether it is required in practice, or what omitting it means.

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 action ('Close') and resource ('a browser ghost launched'), and the parenthetical distinguishes this from attached browsers. This clearly differentiates the tool from attachment-related siblings without needing to open the schema.

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 phrase 'attached browsers are only disconnected' implies this tool should be used only for launched browser ghosts and not attached ones. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or provide a clear decision rule for when to use this versus attach/disconnect flows.

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