Reload Page

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds critical context: reload can repeat writes/requests and may transmit active credentials. This explains the destructive nature and security implications, going well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: usage scenarios, preconditions/next steps, and sensitivity. Front-loaded with the most critical information. No redundant or 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?

The description covers usage context, preconditions, next steps, and behavior. However, it omits parameter semantics entirely, which is a significant completeness gap given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not mention or explain the two parameters (timeoutMs, waitUntil), leaving the agent without crucial semantic information for correct invocation.

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 clearly states specific use cases for reload: reproducing initialization races, cached-versus-fresh behavior, redirects, or intermittent requests. This distinguishes it from sibling navigation tools like browser_navigate, browser_go_back, etc., which serve general navigation.

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 gives explicit preconditions (active page required, start monitor_start first) and hints at next steps (inspect state or read trace summary). It lacks explicit directions on when NOT to use the tool, but the listed scenarios provide clear context for appropriate use.

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