extension_reload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently discloses that the tool reloads the actual extension via chrome.runtime.reload and waits for it to reconnect, giving a clear picture of the action and its blocking behavior. It stops short of detailing what state is destroyed or whether any automation context is lost.

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 conveys the action, the target, the implementation, and the post-action wait behavior with no filler.

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 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly: what it targets, what it does, and what happens next. It could be more complete by noting side effects or usage situations, but nothing essential is missing for a basic call.

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 schema already documents both parameters (frameId and timeoutMs) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no parameter-level detail. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Reload'), a precise resource ('the WebSense extension itself'), and the implementation (chrome.runtime.reload). It clearly distinguishes this from page-navigation tools by emphasizing the extension itself.

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 implies when to use the tool (whenever the extension needs reloading and reconnection), but it does not state conditions, when not to use it, or compare it with any sibling tool. Usage context must be inferred.

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