会话状态

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

With no annotations provided, the description explicitly states '只读操作' (read-only operation), disclosing the tool's side-effect profile. It also describes the exact informational content. While it doesn't address edge cases (e.g., behavior when no browser session exists), the read-only disclosure is valuable and accurate.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and deliverables; the second adds the read-only permission note. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple, parameterless status tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: running status, tab list (with URL/title), and active tab. It does not specify the response structure, but the enumerated items give a clear expectation. This is nearly complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is effectively 100% (vacuous). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist, and the description adds no conflicting or redundant parameter information.

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 uses the specific verb '报告' (report) and clearly identifies the resource ('browser session status'), then enumerates exactly what is included: running state, tab list with URLs and titles, and active tab. This distinctively differentiates it from siblings like web_tab_list, which likely focuses only on tabs.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need an overall status snapshot including running state, tabs, and active tab. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the contextual clarity is strong enough that an agent would know when to invoke it.

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