读取操作提示气泡

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates no side effects, and the description reinforces this by stating it only reads content. It also transparently explains the default scope (main document + auto-penetrating iframes) and the portal attachment behavior, ensuring no surprises.

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 two sentences and to the point, covering the purpose, usage context, and frame behavior without any redundant information. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 tool has an output schema, and the description provides essential usage context (asserting operation results) and handling of iframe/portal specifics. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it, especially given the related tool environment.

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?

Both parameters (frame and tab_id) have clear descriptions. 'frame' explains the meaning of 'active' and references frame_list for valid values; 'tab_id' specifies the default behavior when omitted. The schema coverage is 100%, and the descriptions add necessary 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 reads current AntD message and notification content for assertion purposes. It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on navigation, element interaction, or other AntD-specific actions, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explains when to use the tool ('用于操作结果断言' – for asserting operation results) and provides specific guidance on frame selection due to portal behavior, advising to use frame='active' or the triggering element's frame. This gives actionable context beyond the basic function.

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