jevbrow_close

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key behavioral constraint: it only closes the Jev-owned background tab, not the user's other tabs. This is valuable context beyond the annotations. It doesn't describe what happens if no Jev-owned tab exists, but the idempotent hint covers the no-op case implicitly.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, and the exclusion of user tabs is stated immediately. Every word earns its place.

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-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is nearly complete. It could mention what happens when no Jev-owned tab exists, but the idempotentHint=true annotation implies a safe no-op. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description correctly implies the tool takes no arguments and acts on the Jev-owned tab. Baseline 4 for zero params is appropriate.

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 tool closes a background tab opened and owned by Jev, and explicitly distinguishes it from closing the user's other tabs. The verb 'close' plus the resource 'background tab opened and owned by Jev' is specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to close a tab that Jev opened, and it explicitly says it does not close the user's other tabs. It doesn't name alternative sibling tools, but the exclusion of user tabs provides clear context. A 4 is appropriate because it gives clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing.

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