respawn_offscreen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the destructive nature ('Force-close + recreate'), but it does not mention potential side effects such as loss of in-memory state or any impact on existing extension contexts. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action and purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 one optional parameter fully documented in the schema, the description plus schema provide enough context to invoke it correctly. It could be slightly more complete by noting side effects, but the core purpose and mechanics are clear.

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 fully describes the only parameter (frameId, omit=top), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 a specific imperative verb and resource: it force-closes and recreates the offscreen document. It also states the intended outcome—loading the current on-disk extension code—which distinguishes this from any sibling tool.

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 phrase 'so the CURRENT on-disk extension code loads' clearly implies use after code changes when a reload of the offscreen document is needed. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but none of the sibling tools appear to provide equivalent functionality.

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