browser_pdf

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Generate PDF' without disclosing any behavioral details such as side effects, outcome, output location, or dependencies on the current page state. The description carries the full burden and fails to expose any behavioral traits.

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, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A single phrase with no elaboration does not serve the agent's needs.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, this description is completely inadequate. It lacks any context about return values, effects, or proper invocation, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use correctly.

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 0% description coverage and the tool description does not explain any of the three parameters (path, format, printBackground). The parameter names offer some hint, but the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent without crucial semantic information.

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 '生成PDF' clearly indicates the tool generates a PDF, which is a specific action. However, it does not specify the resource or context (e.g., current page) or differentiate it from sibling tools like browser_screenshot or browser_emulate_media, so it lacks full clarity.

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 among the many browser_* siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or conditions where another tool would be preferable.

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