linkedin_close_browser

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the session persists on disk and will be reopened by the next tool, which is the most important behavioral fact for this tool. However, it says nothing about what is lost when the browser closes (open page state, in-flight operations) or whether the call blocks.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste, leading with the action and immediately following with the consequence that matters most to the caller. 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 lifecycle tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential concern (session durability across close/reopen). It could add a sentence on what browser state is discarded, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema's empty object. No parameter detail is required or missing.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Cierra el navegador' / close the browser), which is clearly distinct from navigation, snapshot, or session-status siblings. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it falls short of full differentiation, but the action is unambiguous.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the teardown step at the end of a browser workflow, and the note that the next tool reopens the browser hints at ordering. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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