Reload a specific browser tab to refresh page content, optionally bypassing the cache when stale resources need to be fetched again.
Reloads the page of tab tab_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab_id | Yes | Your tab's id (from browser_new_tab, or a tab adopted with browser_adopt_tab). | |
| bypass_cache | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.31.6Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "browser_reloadOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no context beyond annotations — it does not say that unsaved form state may be lost, that the page navigates and re-fetches, or whether the call waits for load completion.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is thin rather than dense — there is nothing beyond the minimum to justify its brevity.
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 two-parameter action tool backed by annotations, the description is adequate to call it correctly. However, the undefined bypass_cache parameter and the unspecified return/wait behavior leave real gaps for an agent relying only on the description.
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 only 50%: tab_id is well documented in the schema (including how to obtain it), but bypass_cache has no description anywhere. The description merely restates tab_id and does not compensate for the missing bypass_cache semantics.
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 specific verb and resource (reload a tab's page) and names the tab scoping, so the agent can distinguish it from browser_navigate. It stops short of any sibling differentiation such as 'use instead of navigate when the URL is unchanged'.
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 on when to reload versus browser_navigate, browser_wait_load, or re-fetching via browser_content. No preconditions are given either, so the agent must infer that the tab must already be attached/adopted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.