stagenth · 托管浏览器

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that it uses real Chromium rendering in mainland China, produces text-selectable/searchable PDFs, saves to a file transfer station, returns a download URL, and costs a fixed 1 credit with no charge on failure. These are valuable behavioral details beyond basic functionality.

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 concise yet thorough, consisting of two well-structured sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds usage context and pricing. Every sentence contributes value with no redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple (3 params, no output schema), and the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, use cases, behavior, output (download URL), and cost. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool without needing additional documentation.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters with their own descriptions, including URL format, wait_ms for JS rendering, and page_format options. The tool description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 primary purpose: '把网页打印成 PDF' (print web page to PDF). It also specifies the rendering engine (Chromium), the output format (PDF with selectable/searchable text), and the destination (file transfer station with download URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_screenshot.

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 indicates suitable use cases: '适合归档网页、报告引用、给不能上网的流程留底' (suitable for archiving web pages, report citations, leaving records for offline processes). This provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions billing (per 15 seconds, no charge on failure) and domestic hosting, but doesn't disclose potential side effects of actions like clicking or form filling, nor any execution limitations. This is moderate transparency for an automation tool.

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 three sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. The additional sentences on use-case and billing are relevant and not wasteful, though billing could be seen as non-essential for core usage.

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 complexity of a browser automation tool and no output schema, the description gives a high-level return statement (extracted data + screenshot URL) but lacks details on output structure, error handling, or when to prefer siblings. Still, the schema fully covers the parameters, so it's a passable, not excellent, complete description.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents. The action types are fully described in the schema, so the description doesn't need to compensate. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 a specific action: open a webpage and execute a series of actions, returning extracted data and a screenshot download URL. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_pdf and browser_screenshot, which likely handle single-output operations.

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 a clear use case: accessing domestic Chinese sites that are hard to reach from overseas (government affairs, bidding, e-commerce). It implies using this tool when dynamic rendering and data extraction are needed, but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It transparently states the rendering environment (real Chromium), output format (PNG), temporary download URL (15 minutes), and cost policy (fixed 1 credit, free on failure). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 sentences: the first states the core function and output, the second adds a sibling comparison and cost detail. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant content or clutter.

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 simple tool with no output schema, this description explains the output format, URL expiration, pricing, and failure behavior, covering key context. It could mention browser_pdf as another alternative, but the tool is simple enough that the description feels sufficiently complete.

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 input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for url, wait_ms, and full_page. The description adds only the generic 'one URL in' concept and does not deepen understanding of the parameters beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool takes a screenshot of a webpage with a specific verb ('拍一张截图') and resource ('网页'). It explicitly differentiates from browser_run by noting it's simpler and returns one image from one URL, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit usage context by comparing to browser_run ('比 browser_run 简单直接') and describing the one-in-one-out flow. It implies this tool is preferred for straightforward screenshots, though it does not mention browser_pdf as an alternative, leaving some room for interpretation.

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