relaunch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions restarting and navigating but does not disclose side effects such as loss of current state, whether the restart closes all existing pages, or any prerequisites like an active devtools connection. This is minimal beyond the literal action and leaves critical behaviors to inference.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action ('restart the mini program') and the secondary action ('navigate to the specified page') efficiently. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

Given an output schema exists and all parameters are described, the core functionality is covered. However, for a side-effectful operation like relaunch, the description lacks usage context and behavioral side-effect disclosure. An agent can call it correctly based on the schema, but may not anticipate consequences (e.g., reset state, timeout behavior) without additional info.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself already documents all four parameters (url, params, timeout, waitForLoad) adequately. Therefore, no extra credit or penalty is warranted.

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 the action: restart the mini program and navigate to a specified page. This uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like navigate_to (which likely only navigates) and switch_tab by adding the restart behavior. It is not a tautology.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what the tool does, without indicating scenarios (e.g., 'use when you need a clean session') or excluding cases (e.g., 'use navigate_to if you don't need to restart'). No when-not conditions or alternative references are present.

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