safari_close

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool closes a tab and defines the default target, which is useful. It does not mention irreversibility, unsaved-state loss, or what happens when only one argument is supplied, but the destructive nature is evident from the verb 'close.'

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?

One sentence with no filler. The primary action is stated first, and the special case follows naturally. Every part of the description earns its place.

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 tool is simple: two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core operation and the no-argument default, but leaves partial-argument semantics and index conventions implicit. It is adequate yet incomplete for an agent trying to call it with one argument.

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%, and the description only explains the case where both arguments are omitted. It does not define what the integer values for 'tab' and 'window' represent, nor does it explain behavior when only one of the two arguments is provided. The parameter names and the default instruction provide some orientation, but not enough.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Close a Safari tab.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools, which perform read, JavaScript execution, click, fill, element checks, waiting, listing, and opening operations. The added default-target detail further clarifies what the tool is for.

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 instruction to 'Omit both arguments to close the frontmost window's current tab' gives a concrete invocation condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the intended use is clear from the action and the sibling set.

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