browser_select_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals that this tool has a persistent side effect: later page, iframe, overlay, and VTable operations will be bound to the selected page. It does not mention failure behavior or reset semantics, but the key state-changing 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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then states the consequence. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the main purpose and side effect, and an output schema exists so return-value details are not required. However, it leaves a notable gap: the agent is not told how to obtain a valid page_id (for example, via browser_pages), nor what happens if the page is invalid or not yet open. Overall it is workable but not fully self-sufficient.

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 input schema provides a single required page_id string, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description merely repeats 'page_id' without adding meaning: it does not explain where the id comes from, what format it expects, whether it must come from a prior browser_pages call, or how invalid ids are handled. Since the schema is minimal, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 identifies the action ('显式选中' — explicitly select) and the target resource (a page_id), and explains the consequence that subsequent page, iframe, overlay, and VTable tools will use that page. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_open and browser_pages by making the context-selection role explicit.

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 conveys when to use the tool: when a specific page should become the fixed target for later tool calls. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the behavioral consequence ('后续...固定使用该页') provides clear usage context for an agent deciding whether to select a page before invoking other tools.

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