browser_close

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral transparency on its own. It does state the core behavior—closing the session and releasing resources—which is meaningful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as losing page state, pending actions becoming invalid, or the implications of force-killing beyond what the schema parameter description already says.

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, grammatically complete sentence that communicates the essential action and consequence without filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool and front-loads the primary action clearly.

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?

For a simple, zero-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks usage context and side-effect warnings. The tool is destructive in nature, and an agent would benefit from knowing that closing the session is irreversible and that force is only needed when normal close fails. Overall completeness is acceptable but has clear gaps.

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 100%, so the 'force' parameter is already documented as 'Force-kill the browser process.' The description adds no extra meaning about when force should be true or what the default behavior implies. This meets the baseline for a fully schema-documented parameter but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Close') and identifies the resource ('browser session'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It also clearly differentiates from siblings like browser_init and navigate by stating this terminates the entire session. No ambiguity remains about what operation this tool performs.

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 provides no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives, such as using it only at the end of a browser session or not for closing individual tabs. Nothing distinguishes appropriate usage scenarios or warns against misuse. The only implied context is the tool's name and sibling relationships, which is not explicit enough.

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