Reload the browser extension to restore automation functionality when it becomes unresponsive or errors occur.
reload_extension() — 强制重载扩展（自愈用）
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "reload_extension"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It doesn't state what reloading does to in-memory state, whether it disrupts current automation, if it resets configurations, or what side effects occur. '强制' (force) implies abruptness but no consequences are disclosed.
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 short sentence, which is efficient. However, the language is Chinese-only without an English counterpart, which may reduce accessibility for agents/prompts written in English. It's concise but possibly under-specified given the lack of behavioral context.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain behavior fully. A single phrase '强制重载扩展' does not explain what reloading entails, when it's needed, what the expected outcome is, or what risks exist. Among 40+ sibling tools, more context would help the agent decide when this is the right choice.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4 for no params. There is nothing to explain about parameters since none exist, and the description doesn't need to compensate for undocumented params.
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 states '强制重载扩展（自愈用）' (force reload extension for self-healing), which names the verb+resource clearly. However, it's in Chinese while sibling tools have English descriptions, and there's no English equivalent. It distinguishes from siblings like reload_agent_helpers but only vaguely—'self-healing' is a reason, not a clear purpose.
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 vs the many sibling tools. '自愈用' (for self-healing) hints at a use case but provides no concrete trigger conditions, no mention of what scenario requires reloading the extension, and no exclusion guidance against alternatives like reload_agent_helpers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.