会话状态

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 查看 implies a non-mutating read, and the enumeration of returned fields gives some behavioral picture, but there is no statement about side effects, permissions, or whether this reflects live state versus a snapshot.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the usage hint. Efficient, though the second sentence is more colloquial than informative.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully compensates by listing what is returned (connection info, target page, buffer counts, alerts). For a zero-parameter read-only diagnostic that is largely sufficient; a note on freshness or live-vs-cached state would complete it.

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 takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming it is a no-argument call.

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 (查看) and resource (当前会话), and enumerates the concrete contents it reports: connection info, target page, buffer counts, alerts. An agent can tell it apart from target_list or capture_status. It lacks an explicit contrast with siblings, so it does not reach 5.

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?

The phrase 常用于判断"现在到底连着谁" implies a diagnostic usage context, but no alternatives (target_list, browser_list_processes, session_dump) are named and there are no when-not conditions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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