ruyi_emulate_geolocation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'simulate' but does not explain scope (current page vs. all pages), persistence, reversibility, or any side effects on the browser environment. This is insufficient 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with a clear subject and action. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, exemplifying efficient structure.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too sparse to be contextually complete; it fails to mention which page (pageIdx) is affected, how accuracy is applied, or what happens after emulation (e.g., reset behavior).

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 75% (3 of 4 params have descriptions). The description merely repeats latitude/longitude and adds no extra meaning for pageIdx or accuracy. Since the schema already covers most params, the baseline is 3, and the description neither improves nor harms parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's function: to simulate browser geolocation with latitude/longitude. The verb '模拟' (simulate) is specific, and the resource '浏览器地理位置' (browser geolocation) differentiates it from sibling emulation tools like timezone, locale, and useragent.

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, such as other emulation tools or real geolocation methods. There are no prerequisites, context cues, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage scenario.

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