x_recover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Lightweight' hints at low impact, but it never says what the action actually performs (reload, re-navigate, dismiss?), whether it has side effects, whether it needs an authenticated session, or whether it is safe to call repeatedly. For a mutation-style action tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 with no filler; the recovery targets are listed compactly. It could be slightly sharper but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to explain what recovery means and what state changes it causes. It enumerates modes but leaves the core behavior, side effects, and result of the action unspecified, which is thin for an action tool.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description restates the mode values (composer, home, url) and loosely correlates url with mode=url, but adds no new semantics such as default mode or validity constraints.

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?

States a specific verb ('apply recovery actions') and resource ('X stuck states'), and enumerates the three recovery targets (composer, home, target URL), which maps directly onto the mode parameter. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like x_get_state or x_health_check, though 'recovery' remains somewhat abstract about what is actually recovered.

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 'for common stuck states' implies the trigger condition (UI is stuck), but gives no explicit when-not guidance and names no alternative — e.g., whether to try x_health_check or x_get_state first. Usage context is present but left to inference.

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