browser_reattach_debugger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core behavior: a forced detach and re-attach of the debugger, including the specific failure signature it addresses. It does not mention potential side effects on the page or active execution, but the recovery framing makes the behavior reasonably transparent.

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 one dense, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action with the 'RECOVERY:' marker, then gives the diagnostic context and the comparison to reloading. Every clause earns its place with no padding.

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 zero-parameter recovery tool, the description covers the trigger, the distinguishing condition, and the preferred alternative. It does not explicitly state what a successful re-attach looks like or how to verify success, but this is a minor gap given the simplicity of the operation.

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 is fully covered, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful scope by specifying 'on the current tab,' even though this is not a formal parameter, helping the agent understand exactly what will be affected.

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 verb phrase 'Force-detach and re-attach the Chrome debugger on the current tab' states a specific action on a specific resource. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling interaction tools by being a recovery operation rather than a normal browser action.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: use it when interactive tools like click/fill/press_key time out or report the ghost-attach error while list_tabs still works. It also frames the alternative—reloading the extension—and explains why this tool is preferred, which is strong usage guidance.

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