zerodom_restore_groups

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it declares best-effort semantics and explicit failure behavior ('a tab whose URL now hits a login wall or is otherwise unreachable is skipped, not fatal'). It re-groups under saved name and color, so the mutation outcome is clear. It doesn't mention permissions or whether it overwrites existing groups.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the failure caveat following naturally.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with zero params the main open questions are behavioral — which are largely answered. The remaining gap is whether the operation affects or overwrites live groups outside this restore.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline is 4. The empty schema fully defines the call signature.

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?

Specific verb ('Reopen') plus specific resource ('remembered tabs of every agent group'), with the trigger context ('after a browser restart') making it unmistakable against siblings like create_group, use_group, or list_tabs.

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 states the condition that selects this tool — after a browser restart — which is clear usage context. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not to use it (e.g., versus manual re-adoption via adopt_group/use_group).

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