browser_reap

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'Kill' aligns. The description adds context that it targets orphaned processes, which is useful beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., unsaved work loss) or whether it force-kills, which would be relevant given the destructive nature.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence that immediately states the action and target. No wasted words, and the key qualifier ('leftover... MCP agent is gone') is front-loaded. Perfectly sized for a simple tool.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema and a clear destructive annotation, the description fully explains what it does and when to use it. A brief note on irreversibility or confirmation might be extra, but it is not strictly necessary given the destructiveHint annotation. The description is complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is trivially 100% (empty properties). With no parameters to document, the description is not required to explain any. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no further semantic burden exists.

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 ('Kill'), a resource ('leftover Chrome'), and a condition ('whose MCP agent is gone'). It clearly differentiates this from browser_close, which would target an active session, making the tool's 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 the tool is for orphaned Chrome processes after the MCP agent has terminated. It does not explicitly contrast with browser_close, but the 'leftover' and 'MCP agent is gone' conditions provide clear contextual guidance for when this is appropriate.

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