browser_reattach_debugger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly discloses the force-detach/re-attach behavior and the symptom it addresses. It could go slightly further by stating side effects on the current page or debugger state, but the core behavior is unambiguous.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the action with a 'RECOVERY' label, then gives the exact failure mode and the alternative. Every clause earns its place with no repetition of the tool name or schema.

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 zero-parameter recovery tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly: what it does, when to use it, and why it beats the fallback. Nothing critical is missing at this complexity level.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete and the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the 'current tab' as the implicit target rather than inventing 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?

States a specific recovery action ('Force-detach and re-attach the Chrome debugger on the current tab') with a clear verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from interactive browser tools by positioning itself as the recovery path when click/fill/press_key fail with ghost-attach.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: interactive tools timing out or reporting 'Debugger attach failed ... ghost' while list_tabs still works. It names the practical alternative (reloading the extension) and explains why this tool is preferred ('faster'), so an agent knows when to pick it over alternatives.

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