browser_get_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the primary action and does not mention what happens if no page is open, whether the operation has side effects, or what the return format is. This leaves important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. For a simple getter tool, this level of conciseness is appropriate and efficient. It earns full credit for clarity without being verbose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the rich schema description for the only parameter, the description is somewhat adequate. However, since there is no output schema, the description could have mentioned return values or edge-case behavior (e.g., empty string if no page). This missing context prevents a higher score.

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 covers 100% of the parameters, with the single _agent_id parameter having a clear description about isolation behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score 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 '获取当前页面 URL' clearly states the specific action (get) and resource (current page URL). It is unambiguous and effectively communicates the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools. Since the tool name itself is already explicit, this description is sufficient.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of edge cases, prerequisites (like having a page loaded), or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the tool's obvious purpose.

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