close_browser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Clean up resources' gestures at side effects but never specifies what is destroyed (cookies, session tokens, in-progress state), whether the call is idempotent, or what happens if no browser session is 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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is exactly as long as the content justifies.

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-argument teardown with no output schema, little is strictly required, and the description covers the core action. It still omits lifecycle context an agent would want: whether a session must be open, whether failure is possible, and whether the operation is safe to repeat.

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 for the description to disambiguate; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Close the browser session') plus a second clause about resource cleanup, so an agent immediately knows what happens. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling browser-automation tools (open_application_page, click_element, take_page_screenshot) or clarify that this is the teardown counterpart to those.

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?

Usage is only implied: the naming and lifecycle nature of 'close the browser session' make it obvious this is a terminal step after browser automation. There is no explicit when-to-use trigger, no statement about prerequisites (an open session), and no note about what to do instead if no session exists.

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