close_browser

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 clearly discloses the primary action ('close the local automation browser') and an important non-destructive detail ('preserving the persistent login profile'), which tells an agent that credentials/session state survive the close. It does not mention secondary effects such as open tabs or reconnection behavior, but for a zero-parameter close operation, this is sufficient.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the key preservation guarantee is included without unnecessary elaboration.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema and straightforward behavior, the description is fully complete. It states both what happens (close) and what is preserved (login profile), which is everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly and understand its impact.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter details to add, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameters.

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 local automation browser') and adds a meaningful qualifier ('while preserving the persistent login profile'). It unambiguously identifies a browser-lifecycle action and is clearly distinct from the backtest-focused sibling tools.

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 makes the tool's purpose obvious, but it does not explicitly state when it should be called or contrast it with alternatives. Usage timing is implied rather than stated, which fits a simple utility but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance.

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