MCP Browser Text Reader

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 the action (close) but doesn't describe what happens—e.g., whether it gracefully shuts down the browser, kills processes, affects other tools, or has side effects like losing unsaved data. This is a significant gap for a potentially destructive 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 a single, efficient sentence ('关闭浏览器实例') that directly states the purpose without waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 potential complexity (closing a browser could involve cleanup, state changes, or errors) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, return values, or error conditions, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand its full context.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's acceptable here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 '关闭浏览器实例' (close browser instance) states a clear action (close) on a resource (browser instance), but it's vague about scope—it doesn't specify whether this closes all browser windows, a specific instance, or just the current tab. It distinguishes from siblings like 'navigate_to_page' or 'get_browser_status' by being a termination action, but lacks precision.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this should be used after completing tasks, to free resources, or as part of cleanup, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'launch_chrome_manually' for context. The description alone offers no usage context.

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