ui_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb '返回' suggests a read-only retrieval, which is helpful, but the description does not disclose prerequisites such as an open page, whether the tool performs any actual clicking as part of verification, or any side effects.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and immediately lists the concrete outputs, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it tells the agent what kind of data to expect. It could be stronger by defining what 'Profile' and '定位顺序' mean or clarifying that no clicks are actually performed, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the schema. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the baseline of 4 for a 0-parameter tool applies.

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 states a clear verb, '返回' (returns), and specifies three concrete outputs: current page Profile, positioning order, and VTable click verification order. It is specific enough to identify the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ui_page_context, vtable_meta, or ui_analyze_scope, and some terms are domain jargon.

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 implies this tool is used when the agent needs the current page's Profile, positioning order, or VTable click verification order. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer the right context among many similar UI/VTable sibling tools.

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