browser_close_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('close') but fails to mention side effects, irreversibility, prerequisites (e.g., task existence), or the impact on the session. For a destructive operation, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to provide more context. It lacks guidance on how to discover task IDs (sibling tool browser_tasks), whether the action affects the session, and what state changes occur. This is inadequate for a destructive tool.

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 0% for the single parameter task_id. The description only says '指定task' (specified task), which barely adds meaning beyond the parameter name. It does not explain how to obtain a valid task_id (e.g., via browser_tasks) or any format expectations, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool closes browser resources (page/context) for a specified task, using a specific verb ('关闭' = close) and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like browser_close_session (closes a session) and browser_list_sessions by focusing on task-scoped cleanup.

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 implies usage: when you need to clean up a specific task's browser resources. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use browser_close_session for session-level cleanup), so guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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