linkedin_system_reset

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it clears the in-memory cache and restarts the browser. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra clarity about what the tool actually does, though it could mention potential side effects like re-authentication after a restart.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and then followed by usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with three optional boolean parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it. However, it omits potential side effects of restarting the browser (e.g., needing to re-login) and does not highlight the resetQuotas caution in the main description, though the schema covers that. Overall, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (clearCache, resetQuotas, restartBrowser) already well-described in the schema. The main description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs and resources: 'Clear the in-memory cache and/or restart the browser.' This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are LinkedIn data operations, making it a unique system-level maintenance tool.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'when reads seem stale after an out-of-band change, or when browser automation starts failing repeatedly.' This provides clear context, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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