check_browser_compatibility

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

无注解，描述仅提供基本功能说明，未提及副作用、权限需求或行为细节。对于无注解的工具，描述应更详细地说明行为，如是否只读、是否需要用户授权等。

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?

描述仅一句话，简洁高效。但过于简短导致信息不足，未能充分利用空间。

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?

对于有两个参数、无输出模式且无注解的工具，描述严重不足。未说明返回值格式、支持的具体特性或如何使用'detailed'标志。

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?

描述未提及任何参数。输入模式包含'detailed'和'features'参数，但描述未解释其用途或如何影响结果，致使参数语义完全缺失。

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?

描述明确表述了工具行为：检查浏览器兼容性和特性支持。与所有动画相关的兄弟工具形成鲜明对比，易于区分。

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?

描述未提供何时使用或何时不使用该工具的明确指导。虽然从名称和兄弟工具可推断出它用于兼容性检查，但缺乏替代方案说明。

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