Refresh

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so by stating that it waits for completion and that it captures logs and errors from the new session, which is meaningful behavior beyond just 'refresh.' It does not fully describe side effects like invalidation of prior element references or page state loss, but these are reasonably implied by the term refresh.

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 two concise sentences and front-loads the core purpose first, then adds the key behavioral outcome. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately indicates what the agent can expect from the result: logs and errors from the new session. Combined with the fully documented parameter schema, this is sufficient for correct invocation. It does not specify the exact return structure, but that is not required for making the call.

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 schema already documents notebook, timeout_ms, and wait_for_completion thoroughly. The description adds some alignment by mentioning waiting for completion, which maps to the wait_for_completion parameter, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Trigger... refresh') and a clear resource ('notebook page'), and adds outcome details ('wait for completion', 'captures all logs and errors from the new session'). This clearly distinguishes Refresh from sibling navigation tools like Navigate or FocusNotebook, which are about changing focus/location rather than reloading and collecting session output.

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 clearly implies the tool is used when you need a fresh notebook session after a page reload and want to collect its logs and errors. It does not explicitly mention when to use an alternative tool such as GetConsoleMessages, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this over Navigate or GetErrors in typical refresh scenarios.

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