browser_close

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes two modes of closing (real vs isolated) and their effects (CDP disconnection, process closure), and notes automatic reconnection. This is sufficient for a close action, though some details about error cases or resource implications could enhance transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the primary action. Every sentence is necessary and informative, with no wasted words. The structure efficiently conveys the core functionality and key nuances.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and lacks annotations, the description provides sufficient context by explaining the different closing behaviors and the automatic session rebuilding. It covers the main aspects but could be slightly more complete by mentioning any potential side effects on data or state. Overall, it is well-suited for the tool's simple nature.

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, and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it provides context about the closing behavior that is valuable beyond the schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets this standard.

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 that the tool closes the current browser session and releases resources, distinguishing between 'real' (disconnects CDP but doesn't close real Chrome) and 'isolated' (closes browser process) cases. This is a specific verb+resource pair that effectively separates it from sibling tools like browser_navigate or browser_click.

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 mentions that the next tool call will automatically rebuild the session, providing implicit guidance on when to use the tool (when done with the session). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related actions, lacking clear usage boundaries.

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