reconnect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: this is a re-scan/switch operation that avoids a server restart, with dual list-vs-switch modes. It omits error behavior for an invalid targetId and any side effects, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, with no filler. The last two sentences partially repeat what the schema already documents, preventing a perfect score.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the two modes, and the practical benefit. Only return details and failure handling are unaddressed, which is a minor gap here.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already explains that targetId comes from a prior listing call and that omitting it lists tabs. The description restates this rather than adding format or additional meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource (re-scan Chrome for GoHighLevel tabs, then switch tab/location), which is clearly distinct from browser-lifecycle siblings like launch_chrome and the many read/list_* tools. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the action is 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?

Gives a clear context for use ('change locations without restarting the server') and spells out the two invocation modes: omit targetId to list tabs, supply it to switch. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., launch_chrome/test_connection) or when not to use it.

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