browser_get_all_pages

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without revealing what the list contains (e.g., page IDs, URLs), whether it includes all windows/tabs, or if there are any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no output 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 a single short, front-loaded phrase with zero wasted words. For a getter with no parameters, this level of conciseness is appropriate and earns a high score.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and a very terse description. The description does not specify the return format or any behavioral nuance, leaving the agent to guess what 'all pages' means and how to use the result. This is incomplete for a tool that provides no other structured metadata.

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 zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 since there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds no parameter information because none exists.

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 '获取所有页面列表' clearly states a verb ('get') and a resource ('all pages list'), making the purpose reasonably specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling getters like browser_get_current_url or browser_get_frames, though the resource is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or relationships to other page-management tools such as browser_switch_page or browser_new_page.

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