调整视口

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

在无注释的情况下，描述补充了'只改变渲染视口，不产生网络请求'，明确该操作无网络副作用，为代理提供了关键的安全信息。对于简单操作，这一披露已足够，但未提及如是否影响滚动位置等细节，故非满分。

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?

描述两句话完成，第一句点明功能，第二句补充安全性，没有任何冗余词汇，也未重复schema中已有的最小/最大值，结构清晰且高效。

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?

该工具仅含2个必要参数且无输出schema，描述已涵盖功能、单位及安全副作用，足以支持代理完成调用。但未提及操作后的页面状态（如重绘或保持滚动位置），因此不构成满分。

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?

输入schema已描述width/height及数值范围，但未说明单位；描述补充了'CSS 像素'，为参数提供关键语义信息，帮助代理正确理解数值基准（区别于设备像素），显著提升参数使用的准确性。

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?

描述直接以'调整浏览器视口尺寸'明确了动作和对象，并限定'CSS 像素'，与兄弟工具（如web_scroll、web_screenshot）功能区分明显，不存在歧义。

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?

描述未说明何时使用或与替代工具的取舍，也未提及适合的场景（如响应式测试）或排除条件。仅能根据工具名称和功能推断用途，缺乏主动的使用指导。

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