vtable_analyze_headers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that it is scene-graph driven, that header_icons include directly clickable top-level coordinates, that cell_icons are not in configs and only obtainable from the scene graph, and that capabilities summarizes interactive features. This adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the tool name.

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 compact and front-loaded, using semicolons to efficiently list output fields and ending with a clear use-case clause. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant phrasing.

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 description fully covers the returned components (header_icons, cell_icons, capabilities) and their behavioral implications for clicking. Given the read-only nature and presence of an output schema, this is complete and actionable for an agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% since the description omits the sole parameter (iframe_selector). However, the parameter is optional, has a default value, and is self-explanatory from its name. The description's rich output semantics compensate somewhat, but it does not address the parameter at all, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it 'analyzes interactive icon components in vtable column headers and cells' (分析 vtable 列头与单元格内的交互图标组件), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling vtable tools by focusing on rendered icons with viewport coordinates and a capabilities summary.

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 provides clear context and an intended use case ('用于规划列头点击与行内交互'), indicating when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use, but the context is unambiguous.

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