safari_reset_emulation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what is changed (window size and navigator overrides) and what is not changed (no reload). It could mention behavior when no emulation is active, but it is reasonably transparent for a zero-parameter reset operation.

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 a single concise sentence with a clear front-loaded purpose. Every clause adds value: what it resets, what it restores, and the no-reload caveat. There is no wasted wording.

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 zero-parameter reset tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It identifies the paired tool, specifies exactly what state is restored, and flags the no-reload behavior. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 schema coverage is 100% with an empty schema, so the description does not need to add parameter detail. The baseline of 4 applies because the tool takes no inputs and the description accurately reflects that.

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 identifies the tool as resetting device emulation and explicitly names its paired counterpart, safari_emulate. It states concrete actions: restoring the prior window size and removing navigator overrides, which distinguishes it from other Safari tools.

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 correct usage context: after a prior safari_emulate call. It also clarifies that no reload occurs, which helps an agent decide if this is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the pairing with safari_emulate is sufficient for most cases.

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