把网页打印成 PDF（境内真 Chromium 渲染，文字可选中可搜索），落文件中转站并返下载 URL。
适合归档网页、报告引用、给不能上网的流程留底；固定 1 credit，失败不计费。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | 要打印成 PDF 的网页 URL（http/https，仅限公开网页） | |
| wait_ms | No | 打印前等待毫秒（等 JS 渲染完），默认 1500 | |
| page_format | No | 纸张规格：A4 / A3 / Letter / Legal，默认 A4 | A4 |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: PDF for document capture, screenshot for image capture, and run for interactive extraction with data output. Although run also returns a screenshot, its primary role as an action executor is unambiguous from the description.
All tools share the consistent 'browser_' prefix, but the suffixes mix nouns (pdf, screenshot) and a verb (run). This is a minor deviation from a pure verb_noun pattern, yet the overall naming scheme is predictable and readable.
With just three tools, the set is tightly focused on the core browser operations: print, capture, and interact. This is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool earns its place.
The tool surface covers the primary output methods (PDF, screenshot, data extraction) and the run tool is generic enough to handle various interaction scripts. A minor gap might be the lack of a direct HTML/raw content tool, but agents can work around this using run.