get_page_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes a read-only operation ('Get page info'), but does not disclose any behavioral details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For a simple read tool, the lack of explicit non-destructive indication is a minor gap.

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 (one Chinese, one English) with no filler. All critical information (purpose, output fields) is front-loaded. Every word adds value.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists the four returned fields (url, title, browser, resolution) sufficiently. For a simple tool with one parameter, this covers the essential context. Minor omission: no indication of data types or format (e.g., string, URL).

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description includes the Chinese translation of 'report_id', which adds bilingual clarity but no semantic depth beyond the schema.

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 retrieves page info (url, title, browser, resolution) for a report. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('page info'), and lists the fields returned. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_console_logs or get_rrweb_events.

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 implies use for retrieving basic page metadata, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., get_report_overview for a summary). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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