DrissionPageMCPServer_Modified

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('save page source to file') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what file format is used (e.g., .html, .txt), where the file is saved (local path, temporary storage), permissions required, or error handling. It mentions saving but lacks details on the mutation's effects or output behavior beyond the existence of an output schema.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese ('保存页面源码到文件'), which is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted text, but it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness. It's structured well for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool has 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists (which likely describes the return values), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic action but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., browser connection), file handling, and differentiation from siblings. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but more behavioral details would improve completeness for a mutation tool.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage (no schema descriptions). The description doesn't add any meaning about the 'filename' parameter beyond what the schema title implies. It doesn't explain the parameter's role, default behavior, or format (e.g., if null generates a default name). With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, but since there's only 1 parameter, the baseline is adjusted to 3 as it's minimally adequate.

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 '保存页面源码到文件' (Save page source to file) states a clear verb ('save') and resource ('page source'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'page source' specifically means (HTML source code, DOM tree, rendered content?). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_dom_tree' or 'get_page_text' which might retrieve similar content. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a browser session via 'connect_browser'), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'get_dom_tree' (which might retrieve structured DOM) or 'get_page_text' (which might extract text). Usage is implied from the name but not explicitly stated.

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