target_listLists attachable browser pages for inspection, hiding extension pages, service workers, and devtools by default; set includeBackground to true to include background targets.
列出当前浏览器中可附加的页面。默认隐藏扩展页 / service worker / devtools 等后台目标（Edge、Chrome 装着扩展时这类目标往往有十几个），需要全量时把 includeBackground 设为 true。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| includeBackground | No | 是否包含扩展页、service worker、offscreen 文档等后台目标，默认 false |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers real behavior: results are filtered by default, background targets (extension pages, service workers, devtools) are hidden, and the filter is what causes the visible/count discrepancy on Edge/Chrome with extensions. It stops short of stating return shape or permissions, which keeps it out of 5 territory.
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 sentences, zero filler: the default behavior is front-loaded, the rationale follows, and the override instruction closes. Every clause earns its place.
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 single optional-boolean list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the key decision (default filter vs. includeBackground) and the practical reason for it. It could add a hint about what a listing entry contains, but that is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining why the boolean exists – the volume of noisy extension/service-worker targets – which helps an agent decide when to set it. That is meaningful added context over the schema's terse field description.
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 (列出) and resource (当前浏览器中可附加的页面), and the scope phrase '可附加的页面' distinguishes it from siblings like browser_list_processes and target_select. An agent can tell what it enumerates without opening the 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?
It clearly explains when to flip includeBackground to true (when you need the full target set rather than the filtered view). It doesn't name an explicit alternative tool for attaching to a target, but the use context is unambiguous for a list operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.