ruyi_emulate_locale

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states what the tool does but gives no insight into side effects (e.g., does it persist, affect future navigations, or require reload?), scope, or any potential caveats. This is a significant gap.

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 that directly conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the most relevant information, with no wasted words.

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 tool with two parameters and no annotations or output schema, this description is too sparse. It does not clarify the meaning of pageIdx, what result to expect, or how this differs from related tools. The overall context is incomplete for effective tool selection.

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 input schema describes the 'locale' parameter but leaves 'pageIdx' undeclared. Schema description coverage is 50%, and the description adds no additional parameter information. The tool description fails to explain the role of pageIdx, so the agent cannot fully understand how to use the parameters correctly.

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 action (模拟/emulate) and resource (browser language/region). It distinguishes itself from sibling emulate tools like ruyi_emulate_geolocation or ruyi_emulate_timezone by specifying exactly what is emulated.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios like testing internationalization or how it interacts with page navigation. The description lacks any usage context.

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