restart_firefox

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

It clearly discloses that all current tabs will be closed, which is a significant side effect. It also flags the requirement for MOZ_REMOTE_ALLOW_SYSTEM_ACCESS=1 when setting prefs. Since annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral context, though it omits details about restart timing or return values.

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 three concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence contributes essential information: the action, the configurable aspects, and the key side effect. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 restart tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, the side effect, and a key operational requirement. However, it lacks details on whether the restart is synchronous/asynchronous, what the return value is, and how it affects the existing Firefox automation session. This leaves some ambiguity but is adequate for most use cases.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain each parameter. The text mentions 'binary path, environment variables, and other options,' but this merely echoes the schema. No additional meaning is added beyond the structured definitions.

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 explicitly states 'Restart Firefox with different configuration' and details specific configurable aspects like binary path and environment variables. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on page navigation, screenshots, or extension management, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for restarting Firefox with new settings but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify that to change a single preference without restart, one might use other tools. This leaves the agent to infer from context rather than providing direct guidance.

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