站立式版式检查

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key safety trait explicitly ("只读" and "不改页面" — read-only, does not modify the page). However it says nothing about what the scan returns (per-rule pass/fail, violation list, severity), whether it is expensive, or whether it needs the page to be rendered first.

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?

A single dense sentence with the rules front-loaded and the read-only guarantee appended last, so nothing is wasted. It is slightly run-on as a colon-separated list, but every clause carries a distinct rule.

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 one-parameter read-only check with no output schema, the definition covers what is inspected and that nothing is mutated, which is the core need. It is still incomplete about the shape of the result (a report of violations? a boolean?) and about its relationship to the adjacent audit_* tools, which matters given how many siblings overlap.

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?

Only one parameter, pageId, and schema description coverage is 100% ("页面 id 或页面 URL"), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format detail, no note on whether a URL triggers a fetch, and no scope caveat. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully documents the single parameter.

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 gives a specific verb (read-only scan) and resource (layout/typography rules), and enumerates the concrete rules being checked (table usage, forbidden long notice boxes, heading hierarchy, cover and icons, body density). It is clearly distinguishable in intent from mutation tools like apply_plan, but it never names its closest siblings (audit_page, audit_structure), so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: a pre-flight style check is suggested by the enumerated rules, but there is no statement of when to call this versus audit_page or audit_structure, nor whether it should run before apply_plan or after diff_after_beautify. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives.

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