browser_restart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool closes and relaunches a browser, which implies destructive action, but does not detail consequences like loss of unsaved tabs or session data. The need for confirmation (confirmKill) is only present in the schema, not the description, so impact is under-communicated.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words, front-loading the action and then providing the use case. It is well-structured and to the point.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature (killing a browser), the absence of parameter explanation and behavioral detail makes the description incomplete. It lacks clarity on what happens to the existing browser process, how confirmKill is used, and what the user should expect after the restart. The description is too sparse for a potentially impactful operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. However, it gives no explanation of what 'browser' or 'confirmKill' mean, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill them. The only hint is 'votre profil utilisateur' which implicitly relates to profile use but not to specific parameters.

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: it closes a current browser (without CDP) and relaunches it with CDP and the user profile. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_launch or browser_status, which handle different scenarios.

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 explicit context for when to use it: 'Utile quand le navigateur est déjà ouvert mais pas en mode debug' (Useful when the browser is already open but not in debug mode). This gives clear guidance on appropriate scenarios, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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