scout_tab_close

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

Without annotations, the description must carry full burden. It discloses the core behavior (close and prune records) and batch capability, but omits potential side effects (e.g., irreversible closure), error handling, or confirmation of success.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the primary action. Every sentence provides essential information without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the main use cases well. It could be improved by addressing edge cases like invalid IDs or empty tab state, but is largely 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description. The tool description adds value by providing examples and clarifying empty behavior, surpassing the baseline of 3.

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 resource (browser tabs), mentions batch close via CDP short IDs, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scout_tab_switch or scout_tabs by focusing solely on closing.

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 provides operational context (supports batch close, empty for current tab) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives like scout_close or scout_tab_switch, which are siblings.

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