re_launch

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

无注解，描述本身明确披露了关键副作用“关闭所有页面”，这是重要的破坏性行为，提供了超越基本信息的行为透明度；但未提及返回值或权限要求，略有不完整。

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?

描述为单句，直接明确，信息密度高，无冗余内容，结构紧凑。

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?

工具简单，描述已涵盖核心行为（关闭全部页面并重开指定页面），但缺少与launch等工具的比较说明，在兄弟工具众多的上下文中略显不足，但整体完整度较好。

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?

输入模式中url描述覆盖率为100%（“需要打开的应用内页面路径”），描述本身未额外增加参数含义，依据高覆盖率的基线给予3分。

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?

描述明确规定“关闭所有页面并重新打开指定页面”，动词明确（关闭、重新打开），资源具体（页面），且与launch/navigate_to等兄弟工具区分开来，清晰界定功能范围。

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?

描述隐含了使用场景（需要重置页面栈并打开指定页面），但未明确说明何时使用或何时不使用，也未对比launch、navigate_to等替代工具，因此仅为隐含的用法指导。

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