inspector_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two most important behavioral facts: closing terminates the connection, and the next inspector call reconnects automatically. It does not say whether any browser/page state is lost or what happens if no connection is open, leaving a small gap.

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, the primary effect front-loaded and the follow-on consequence second. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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, no-output-schema lifecycle tool, the description covers what it does, the exclusivity constraint that motivates it, and the reconnect behavior that follows. An agent has enough to call it correctly without further context.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-like inputs are mentioned, which is consistent with the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("End the inspector connection") rather than restating the name, and adds the scoping rule "a page takes one frontend at a time." It is clearly distinguishable from inspection siblings like inspector_pages or inspector_raw, though it never names an alternative tool to contrast with.

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 clause "the next inspector call reconnects" implies the operation is reversible and safe to invoke whenever the frontend slot should be released, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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