get_url_browsing_log

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares the tool's safety profile, and the description is consistent with it, describing a read operation. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format beyond what annotations and output schema already provide. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence: '获取网址浏览记录.' It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundancy. For a simple getter with no parameters, this is appropriately sized.

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 the tool's low complexity (zero parameters, read-only), the description is nearly complete. The output schema exists to describe return values, and the annotation covers safety. However, the lack of any usage guidance or context about what 'browsing log' includes prevents it from being a perfect 5.

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 has 0 parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Per the calibration rules, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters that do not exist, and it does not add any misleading information.

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 '获取网址浏览记录' clearly states the tool retrieves URL browsing records, using a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous and directly maps to the tool name, but it does not differentiate from sibling log-retrieving tools like get_im_log or get_terminal_log beyond the resource name.

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 alternatives. The description is a simple declarative statement with no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It leaves the agent without information about when to prefer this tool over similar log retrieval tools.

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