Close named page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the term 'unregister' beyond the schema, indicating that the page is removed from tracking. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether pending operations are cancelled), error conditions (e.g., closing a non-existent page), or whether the operation is synchronous. This is adequate but incomplete.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value, and the structure is optimal for quick scanning by an AI agent.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and 15 sibling tools, the description is too brief to provide sufficient context. It does not explain the tool's role in the page lifecycle, when to use it, or what happens after closing. The schema covers parameters, but the description lacks the operational context needed for an agent to use it correctly, especially given the complexity of the tool family.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'named page' which corresponds to the required `name` parameter, but the schema already describes it as 'Named page to close.' The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Close and unregister a named page') that uniquely identifies the tool's action among siblings. It clearly states what the tool does, and the verb 'close' is not used by any other sibling tool, making it 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `dev_browser_list_pages` or `dev_browser_page_open`. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the page must be open) or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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