antd_get_optionsExpands an Ant Design dropdown select and lists all visible option texts.
展开 AntD 下拉选择框并列出当前可见的全部选项文本（先于 antd_select 使用）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tab_id | No | 标签页 id，省略时用最新标签页 | |
| timeout | No | 等待浮层出现的秒数 | |
| element_id | Yes | Select 元素的 element_id（find_element 定位 '.ant-select' 等） |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description accurately reflects the read-only nature of the operation by indicating it expands and lists options, without suggesting any modification. It does not describe edge cases or failure modes, but the core behavior is transparently stated.
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 concise, containing only the essential action, object, and usage hint. It avoids redundant wording and is well-structured for quick comprehension.
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?
The description states the output as 'all currently visible option texts,' which defines the expected result sufficiently. However, it does not mention whether additional data such as option values are included, and the available output schema is not shown in the prompt. This leaves a small gap in completeness.
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?
Every parameter is described in the schema: tab_id is the tab identifier, timeout is the wait duration for the popup, and element_id is the Select element identifier. Schema coverage is complete and each description adds meaningful context.
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 expands an AntD dropdown select and lists all currently visible option texts, and explicitly positions it as a precursor to antd_select. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.
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 provides direct usage guidance by stating it should be used before antd_select. It does not elaborate on when it should or should not be used relative to other select-like siblings, but the primary workflow hint is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.