Refresh the current iOS Safari page, with optional page selection, wait time, and cache bypass.
Reload the page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | index in inspector_pages; default the first page with a real address | |
| wait | No | seconds to wait for the page list, default 60 | |
| ignore_cache | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a one-sentence description, the full burden is on the description, which discloses almost nothing. It does not mention whether reload discards unsaved state, whether it bypasses cache by default (despite an `ignore_cache` parameter), or how long the page should be waited for. The only clue is the word 'reload' itself, which implies navigation but not behavior.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no structural layering to help the agent understand when or how to invoke it.
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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain page selection, cache behavior, wait semantics, or what happens on reload. The agent must infer all behavioral details from the schema alone.
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 67%, with `ignore_cache` undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not explain the default page selection or wait behavior beyond what the schema already says. It adds no value over the structured fields.
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 provides a clear verb+resource comb ('reload' and 'page'), but it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like `navigate` or `open_url`. The phrase 'the page' is also ambiguous when a `page` index parameter exists, leaving the agent to infer which page is affected.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `navigate`, `open_url`, or `back`. No context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.