oc_reap_orphans

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

The description discloses that the tool terminates processes (destructive) and specifies it does not affect attach-mode or unmarked Chrome, adding behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention idempotency or side effects, but the safety boundary is clear.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and a key safety constraint. No wasted words.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and safety. It could mention the result or return value, but the lack of such is acceptable given the tool's nature.

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 100%, and the input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (ports and dryRun). The overall description adds no extra parameter information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs 'sweep and terminate' and clearly identifies the resource as 'orphaned OpenChrome-managed Chrome processes'. It also explicitly excludes attach-mode or unmarked user Chrome, differentiating it from other tools.

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 states it is for manual intervention and clarifies what it never touches, providing safety guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives, though the context implies its use for cleaning orphaned processes.

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