預先載入服務的無痕聊天頁

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that work happens in a background browser, that the call never errors when preloading is impossible, and that failure surfaces as warmed=false with the next webchat_ask loading normally. It does not describe latency, cost, or the full return shape, but the no-error contract and failure signaling are the critical traits for an agent here.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what it does, how the model parameter interacts with later calls, and who should call it plus the failure contract. Front-loaded with the primary effect and no filler.

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, and the description compensates by naming the warmed=false signal, so an agent knows what a result means. For a two-parameter, zero-required optimization tool with a documented host-integration use case and a safe no-error contract, nothing essential is missing.

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; however the description adds cross-tool meaning the schema does not carry, namely that a preselected model persists so a later webchat_ask with the same model skips the switch. It also reinforces that an unselectable label is ignored here and reported by webchat_ask.

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 (preload) and resource (the private/temporary chat page of the chosen service in the background browser) plus the outcome it enables (next webchat_ask skips page load). It explicitly names sibling tools webchat_ask and webchat_release, so it is distinguishable from the rest of the family without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance tied to a trigger ('call it when the user switches to a webchat model') and an explicit counterpart action ('webchat_release when they switch away'). It also names the conditions under which the tool is not applicable (visible browser window, verification page, login required) and states the fallback behavior.

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