暂停

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false); the description adds genuinely new operational context: up to ~30 seconds of extension cold-start latency and that the pause command queues until the extension wakes. It omits what happens when pausing an already-paused or completed job, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded followed by the latency caveat; no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple action tool, though the queueing clause is somewhat densely packed for a non-technical reader.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers latency and queueing behavior but leaves both parameters undocumented and says nothing about the result or how a queued pause interacts with subsequent resume/cancel calls. Complete enough to attempt the call, incomplete for interpreting its delayed effect.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description mentions neither jobId nor stateDir, so the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The only hint is that some task must be identified, which is implied by the purpose rather than documented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: pausing a currently-downloading task, with the scope qualifier "正在下的" that distinguishes it from status/list/progress siblings. It does not explicitly name the complementary actions (chrome_download_resume, chrome_download_cancel), so differentiation rests on the agent inferring from the verb.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb rather than stated: the description never says when to pause versus cancel/wait, nor any prerequisite. It does supply useful operational context (cold start up to ~30s, command queues while the extension sleeps), which is closer to behavior than to when-to-use guidance.

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