新建标签页

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tab is created with optional URL, is activated by default, and may initiate network requests (permission note). However, it does not describe failure behavior, what the timeout parameter actually applies to, or any side effects on existing tabs, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 sentences that front-load the main action and then provide a relevant permission note. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy or extra wording.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the primary purpose, the activation behavior, and a network side effect. It is missing only a comparison to sibling tools and some detail on timeout semantics, but these are largely covered by the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond what the schema already states: '可带初始 URL' mirrors the url property, and '默认立即激活' mirrors the activate_tab default. No additional meaning is provided, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '新建一个标签页' (create a new tab) and specifies it can include an initial URL and be activated immediately. This distinguishes it from tab-management siblings like web_tab_switch and web_tab_close, though it does not explicitly differentiate from web_open, which could also involve opening a URL.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as web_open or web_tab_switch. The description only implies usage for creating a new tab, with no exclusions or comparative context, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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