List the browser-side tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool is read-only and has no side effects ('只读、无副作用'). It also mentions the two invocation modes. However, it does not detail the exact output format beyond listing fields, which would be beneficial.

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 concise paragraph in Chinese that covers purpose, usage, and behavior without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's role as a discovery tool for available reverse engineering tools. It mentions specific tool examples and the decision-making context. However, the exact structure of the returned list could be more explicit.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The description adds context about the tool's behavior and usage, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool. Baseline is 4.

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 tool's purpose: listing browser-side reverse engineering tools with details like name, description, confirmation needs, and parameter names. It also distinguishes itself by mentioning two usage modes (delegation vs direct call via agent_call_tool), setting it apart from siblings.

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 explicitly advises to use this tool first ('先看这个再决定委派还是直调') and then choose between delegation (default cost splitting) or direct calling with agent_call_tool (since 0.2.0). This provides clear when and when-not guidance.

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