close_weather_browser_israel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is safe to call at any time, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explain potential side effects (e.g., discarding unsaved browser state) or behavior if the browser is already closed. Still, for such a simple tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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, brief sentence that front-loads the core action ('Close the browser opened by these tools') and adds a safety note, with no redundant information. It earns its place perfectly.

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 extremely simple (no parameters, no complex logic) and has an output schema. The description clarifies both the operation and its safety, and the sibling tools provide context for when this cleanup action is needed. Nothing else is required for an agent to use it correctly.

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, and the schema confirms this (empty properties). With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter details. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4.

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 ('close') with a clear resource ('the browser opened by these tools'), immediately distinguishing this from sibling tools that open, enter, select, or extract forecast data. Even without naming the sibling tools, 'these tools' makes the scope clear.

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 phrase 'Safe to call at any time' provides explicit guidance on when the tool can be used, implying it is a cleanup action with no risk. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the tool's purpose is evident and complements the sibling tools, making this clear enough for an agent.

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