Refresh Page

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, signaling the tool's destructive nature. The description adds no further behavioral traits (e.g., loss of form state, reloading resources). With annotations bearing the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate for not augmenting beyond them.

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 sentence of 4 words, front-loading all critical information. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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, parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough. It states the essential action. While it could mention side effects, the destructiveHint annotation covers that context, making further detail unnecessary.

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 no parameters and input schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4; the description does not add parameter detail but none is needed.

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 'Refresh the current page' clearly states the verb (Refresh) and resource (the current page). It is specific and unambiguous, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like page_navigate or page_go_forward, though the action is inherently different.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., page_navigate for loading a new URL, page_go_back for history navigation). The description lacks context for proper decision-making.

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