close

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action ('종료하고' - terminate/close) which implies this is not a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what happens to unsaved data, or whether it requires specific permissions. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action ('브라우저를 종료하고') followed by the scope ('모든 탭을 닫습니다'). Every word earns its place in communicating the tool's purpose.

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 destructive, zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information about what the tool does. However, it lacks important context about the consequences of browser closure, what happens to session data, or whether there are any side effects. The description is complete enough to understand the basic action but insufficient for safe, informed use.

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 (schema coverage 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. No additional parameter semantics are needed or expected.

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 specific action ('브라우저를 종료하고' - close browser) and the resource affected ('모든 탭을 닫습니다' - close all tabs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'release_tab' (which releases a single tab) and 'navigate' (which changes page content). The description provides a complete, unambiguous statement of what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a browser must be open first), when it's appropriate versus using 'release_tab' for individual tabs, or what happens after browser closure. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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