browser_reattach_debugger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (force-detach and re-attach) and the symptom it addresses. However, it does not mention any side effects, such as whether the page state is preserved, whether the tab reloads, or what the return value may be. The description gives enough to invoke it but not full behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('RECOVERY: Force-detach...') and then provides the triggering condition and benefit. It is concise, with no wasted words. Every clause earns its place, conveying purpose, usage, and the contrast with an alternative.

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 utility tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the 'what' and 'when'. It explains the specific failure scenario and why this tool is preferred. However, it does not describe what happens after execution (e.g., success signal, page state), which is a minor gap but not critical for a recovery tool that likely returns a simple status. Overall it is complete enough for an agent to decide and invoke.

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, so the schema provides nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description appropriately avoids adding parameter-related text since there are none, and it adds no irrelevant information. It fully satisfies the requirement for parameter semantics.

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 ('Force-detach and re-attach'), a specific resource ('Chrome debugger'), and a scope ('current tab'). It also called out as a recovery operation, clearly distinguishing it from the many interactive sibling tools. An agent can immediately understand its purpose without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it: when interactive tools (click/fill/press_key) start timing out or report ghost-attach, while list_tabs still works. It also provides an alternative (faster than reloading the extension), giving clear decision guidance. No ambiguity about the trigger conditions.

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