arc_reload_tab

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as potential data loss, blocking behavior, or error handling when tab index is invalid. The minimal 'reload the tab' lacks depth.

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 extremely concise, with a single sentence. While this is efficient, it might benefit from a bit more context (e.g., 'Reloads the current page in the specified tab'). No wasted words, but could be slightly more informative.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context about what 'reload' entails (e.g., cache behavior, network request) and when it is useful.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the only parameter (tab_index) already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'reload the tab' and 'if not specified, active tab'.

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 (reload) and the resource (tab), distinguishing it from sibling tools like arc_close_tab or arc_go_back. However, it is only in Japanese, which may limit understanding if the agent is English-oriented.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like arc_go_back or arc_open_url. The description does not specify prerequisites or context in which reloading is appropriate.

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