browser_cleanup_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of exposing side effects. It openly states that tabs are closed, the Chrome tab group is removed, and a window can optionally be kept for reuse. It does not discuss irreversibility or no-match behavior, but the destructive nature is clearly disclosed.

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 compact and well-ordered: primary operation first, optional behavior second, extra cleanup capability third. It contains no filler, though the parenthetical 'removes the Chrome tab group' is slightly redundant with 'Close tabs'.

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 description covers the main operation, optional window behavior, and prefix-based junk cleanup, and the schema documents all parameters. However, all parameters are optional in the schema and the description never clarifies what happens if task is omitted or if no matching group exists; without an output schema or annotations, this is a small but real gap.

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?

All four parameters already have detailed descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little context, such as 'about:blank for reuse' and 'junk cleanup', but mostly reinforces what the schema already states.

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 first sentence names the exact action (close tabs) and resource (task group / Chrome tab group), and the description clearly separates this from generic tab-closing tools. The optional window-keeping and junk-cleanup clauses further define the tool's scope.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: for cleaning up a task group's tabs, optionally preserving a reusable blank window, and removing leftover groups by exact title or prefix. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as using browser_close_tab for individual tabs, so it falls short of a 5.

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