刷新页面

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

The description implies a state change (refresh) and the annotation readOnlyHint=false confirms this, but it does not disclose potential side effects like reloading resources or losing unsaved input. The behavior is simple and generally understood, but not fully transparent.

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, short sentence that perfectly captures the tool's function without any fluff or unnecessary detail. It is optimally 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 refresh action, the description is sufficient to understand the core operation. However, it does not mention potential edge cases like tab not found or whether it waits for page load, which could be relevant in complex workflows but are not critical for basic use.

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 description itself adds no parameter details, but the schema already provides full descriptions for tab_id (including null meaning) and ignore_cache. Since the schema carries the semantic weight, the description does not need to repeat it, yet it also does not add extra insight.

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 action ('refresh') and the target ('current page of the tab'), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose. It is concise and directly conveys the intended operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as navigate or wait_element. It does not mention expected scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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