Close the Claude Design browser

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool shuts down Chrome and flushes its profile, implying data removal, but does not explain consequences (e.g., clears cookies/history, potential irreversibility) or whether it affects unsaved work. This is a moderate level of transparency for a destructive-ish operation.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The action is stated first, followed by a clear usage directive. It earns its place entirely.

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 simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and when to invoke it. The phrase 'flush its profile' is slightly vague but overall adequately complete for its complexity.

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, so the input schema is trivial. Per rubric, a no-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. There is no gap here.

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 'Shut the background Chrome down and flush its profile' uses a specific verb ('shut down') and resource ('background Chrome', 'profile'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_chats or send_prompt, which are unrelated. It is immediately obvious 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 instruction 'Call this when you are done for a while' provides explicit usage context. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool performs browser shutdown, so the guidance is sufficient for selecting the right tool in the intended scenario.

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