lichess_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 genuine behavioral context by explaining the consequence of not calling it (credits keep running), which is valuable and non-obvious. However, it says nothing about whether unsaved session state is lost, whether the call errors when no session exists, or whether it is idempotent — meaningful gaps for a teardown 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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and the motivation appended. Every clause earns its place: the verb, the target, the timing, and the cost rationale.

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 the essential question of when and why to call it. The remaining gap — error behavior when no session is active and whether state is discarded — is minor but real for a lifecycle-ending operation.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The absence of parameters is consistent with a simple session teardown.

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 Lichess browser session.' This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools (lichess_open, lichess_read, lichess_click, lichess_type), which all operate on a live session rather than tearing it down. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands just under the top mark.

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 trigger condition for calling it, and the implicit pairing with lichess_open makes the lifecycle obvious. It does not state what to do if a session was never opened or whether closing mid-task is acceptable, so it falls short of explicit when-not guidance.

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