get_page_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool lists currently tracked pages and buffer statistics, indicating a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm safety, permissions, or side effects. It could benefit from stating that this is a non-mutating inspection tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that starts with the action verb and includes key output components. It is concise with no unnecessary 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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description provides adequate context: it specifies the exact data returned (pages with URL/title/last activity, buffer stats) and implies the current state. Without an output schema, the description covers essential return values, though it could elaborate on the format of buffer statistics.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema is empty, so parameter semantics are trivially covered. The description adds context about the return payload (URL, title, last activity, buffer stats), which clarifies the tool's output without needing parameter explanations. Baseline 4 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 uses the specific verb '列出' (list) and clearly identifies the resource as pages tracked by the extension, including URL, title, and last activity time, plus buffer statistics. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_browser_errors and get_console_logs, which address errors and logs respectively.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It clearly explains that the tool returns page tracking info, implying it is used when page data is needed, but no exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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