一键保存

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose concrete behavioral output: the exact set of files written to a directory, including an offline HTML report. However, it omits important traits such as whether an existing directory is overwritten, whether writes are additive, and any permission or failure behavior for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action first, then enumerates outputs. It is efficient and waste-free, though the long artifact list is somewhat dense and could be trimmed to the most distinguishing files.

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 zero-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what gets written to disk, which compensates for the missing return documentation. It falls short only on behavioral caveats (overwrite handling, session requirements) that an agent would want before invoking a write operation.

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 100%, so all nine parameters (dir, name, maxRows, rootDir, and the five include* toggles) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific action (把抓到的全部内容落盘, persisting captured content to disk) with an exhaustive enumeration of the resulting artifacts (session.json, network.har, dom.html, report.html, manifest.json, etc.). This makes it unambiguous against siblings like capture_stop (which halts), capture_list_saved (which lists), or network_list (which reads), so an agent can tell what this produces without opening a schema.

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 statement of when to invoke this versus alternatives such as capture_stop or capture_list_saved, nor any prerequisite (e.g. an active session, completed capture). Usage is only weakly implied by '抓到的内容' (the captured content). No exclusions or routing guidance are provided.

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