browser_block_requests

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

No annotations exist, and the description offers no behavioral details beyond the verb. It does not disclose what 'blocking' entails (e.g., permanent cancellation, matching rules, reversibility, side effects on navigation). The description fails to convey any operational nuances.

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 short (two characters), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks any structural detail, such as parameter explanation or usage context, so the brevity is not a strength.

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 has one complex parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and limited sibling differentiation, the description is grossly inadequate. An agent would have to guess the behavior and parameter format, risking incorrect invocation.

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 has one parameter 'patterns' with no description, and the tool description adds no meaning. It is unclear whether patterns are URL globs, regex, or exact strings. With 0% schema coverage, this is a critical gap.

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 '拦截请求' (block requests) names a specific action and resource, making the core purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like browser_mock_response or browser_wait_for_request, which could overlap in intent. The brevity makes it unambiguous but not differentiating.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where blocking requests is appropriate. Sibling tools with related functionality (e.g., mock_response) are not mentioned.

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