close_browser

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does state the primary side effect (closing the browser) and the cleanup of resources, which is good basic transparency. However, it does not detail what happens to ongoing operations, open tabs, or whether any state is persisted, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence that covers both the action and the cleanup aspect with no wasted words. It is concise and directly to the point.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, and only one action), the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool does. It covers the primary purpose and the intended resource cleanup without needing to explain return values or complex side effects.

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, and the schema coverage is 100%. There is no parameter information needed, and the description is not required to compensate for any schema gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate given that no parameters exist.

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 the browser and cleans up resources, which is a specific action on a clear resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like open_page and interact_with_page by focusing on teardown. However, 'clean up resources' is somewhat vague and could be more specific about what it entails.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used at the end of a browsing session or that it will invalidate any handles from open_page. The usage is implied by the name and context, but no direct guidance is provided.

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