查看会话状态

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a read-only operation, and the description does not contradict this. However, the description adds no additional behavioral details (e.g., side effects or performance implications) beyond the annotation.

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 that fully conveys the tool's function. There is no extraneous information, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 simplicity of the tool and the existence of an output schema (as noted in the context), the description provides sufficient information for an agent to understand what the tool returns. It could potentially mention that the output includes structured details, but this is not necessary because the schema covers that.

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?

There are no parameters to describe. Since the schema coverage is trivially complete (100% coverage of zero parameters), the baseline score of 3 applies without any need for additional explanation.

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 all browser sessions, their tabs, and context information. It uses the verb '列出' and distinguishes this tool from more specific tools like tab_list or context_list by providing an overall status view.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is a read-only status getter, the description does not mention specific scenarios or contrast with sibling tools like tab_list or context_list.

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