browser_close

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the 'held by this server' qualifier, which clarifies scope but does not disclose side effects like releasing resources or invalidating subsequent browser tool calls. Given the simplicity of the operation and annotation coverage, a modest score is appropriate.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and scope directly and is immediately understandable. There is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 parameterless, side-effect-simple tool with annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is fully sufficient. No output schema exists, and none is needed for a close operation. The agent has everything required to invoke it 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 and the schema is trivially complete. Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, this receives a 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is correct since there are none.

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 uses a specific verb ('close') and a clear resource ('browser session held by this server'). It distinguishes from all siblings by naming the lifecycle termination operation, opposite of browser_open.

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 implied by the purpose: close the session when done with it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no mention of timing (e.g., after all browser actions), and no exclusions. It is not misleading, but the agent must infer the appropriate moment.

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