anylist_close

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral value by explaining the consequence of not calling it (credits keep running), which is more than a bare 'close' statement. However, it says nothing about idempotency (what happens if no session is open), whether in-flight state such as loaded page content or unsaved work is lost, or error behavior.

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 followed by the timing condition and the cost rationale. Nothing is redundant and every clause 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 teardown tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to call it, and why it matters. The only meaningful omission is what happens if there is no active session or whether session artifacts are discarded.

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 the baseline is 4. The description gives no parameter information because there is none to give, and nothing about the empty schema is left ambiguous.

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 AnyList browser session.' That is unambiguous and implicitly the counterpart of anylist_open, so an agent can place it in the lifecycle without opening a schema. It stops just short of explicitly naming the sibling it pairs with.

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?

'when the work is done' gives a clear triggering condition for invocation, and the credit-burn rationale reinforces that this is a teardown step. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives, but for a zero-argument cleanup tool the context is sufficient.

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