navegador_fechar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only restates the purpose. It does not disclose whether closing destroys session state (cookies, logged-in tabs, form data), whether it errors when no browser is open, or whether it blocks until shutdown completes.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler or redundant phrasing. Its brevity is appropriate for a no-argument tool, though the terseness is part of why behavioral detail is absent.

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?

The tool is structurally simple (zero params, output schema present, so return values need not be explained here). However, for a destructive-feeling operation with no annotations, the definition gives no edge-case behavior or safety context, leaving the agent to guess about state loss and error conditions.

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 per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The single sentence does not need to explain argument syntax, and no misleading param claims are made.

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?

"Fecha o navegador do agente" states a specific verb (fechar) and resource (o navegador), making the tool's action unambiguous. It is implicitly the counterpart of navegador_abrir, though the description never names or contrasts it with that sibling explicitly.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance: it never says whether to close the browser after finishing a task, whether closing is mandatory before restarting, or what alternative exists (e.g., leaving the session open for later navegador_* calls). Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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