analyze_current_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavior details like recursion into nested iframes and generation of locators, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if any side effects occur. This leaves some ambiguity about the tool's safety profile.

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, focused sentence in Chinese that gets straight to the point. It conveys the main purpose, scope (recursive, iframes), and output (locators) without any wasted words.

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?

Despite having no parameters, the tool's complexity includes iframe recursion and locator generation. The description covers the core functionality and mentions iframe handling; the output schema presumably details the return structure. It is comprehensive enough for a 0-parameter tool.

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, and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter meanings, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to clarify.

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 verb 'analyze' and the resource 'current Chrome page', and specifies that it recursively extracts visible interactive elements and generates locators. This distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like click_interact and fill_input.

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 the tool is used to gather locators for subsequent interactions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Context suggests it should be used before clicking or filling, but that guidance is not spelled out.

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