reload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it flags the call as DISRUPTIVE, explains the blast radius (shared by every tab and every other agent session; mid-flight work elsewhere gets cut), and gives recovery/timing facts (~2s, bridge auto-reconnects, tabs keep state). That is exactly the behavioral context an agent cannot get from the schema or the empty annotation set.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and mechanism, then timing, then the disruption warning, then the call condition — a sensible information order with no filler. It is dense and em-dash-packed but nearly every clause carries distinct information, so it is efficient rather than padded.

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 one-parameter mutation-ish maintenance tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does, side effects, latency, recovery behavior, and the precondition for calling it. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to invoke it is missing.

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 single parameter spaceId is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the requirement to also pass its tabId, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further detail about spaceId and does not need to.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reload the beat-browser extension') and even names the underlying mechanism (chrome.runtime.reload()), which immediately disambiguates it from page-level tools like navigate or scroll in the sibling list. An agent can tell this reloads the extension itself, not a tab or document.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('only right after installing/updating, or when doctor/a version-mismatch warning says to') and an explicit when-not ('never speculatively'). The trigger conditions are named concretely rather than implied.

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