Get Url Browsing Log

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the annotation carries the safety profile. The description adds nothing further: no indication of what time range is returned, whether results are paginated or capped, or how the log is ordered, which matters for a log-retrieval 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?

A single front-loaded phrase with no wasted words, appropriate in size for a zero-parameter retrieval tool. Brevity is its virtue but also its ceiling, since there is no structure to evaluate.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. Still, a zero-param log tool gives the agent no sense of scope (whole history vs recent window) or of which log sibling it should pick, leaving the definition minimally viable rather than complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema description coverage is 100% and the description introduces no conflicting parameter hints.

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?

"获取网址浏览记录" states a specific verb+resource (retrieve URL browsing log), and the resource does separate it from other log siblings like get_terminal_log or get_auth_log. However, it is essentially a translation of the tool title and adds no scope or qualifying information beyond the name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling log tools, nor any stated prerequisites, scope (time window, device, user) or exclusions. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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