style_spacing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the core action. It does not clarify what 'spacing' measures, how elements are selected in tabs, or what the return value looks like. No contradictions with annotations exist, but the minimal detail leaves significant ambiguity.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, which is positive. However, it is under-specified to the point of losing clarity, so the brevity does not fully serve its purpose.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, tab selection behavior, or the exact meaning of spacing, leaving agents without enough information to invoke it correctly in varied contexts.

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 coverage is 60% with descriptions for optional parameters, but the required uidA/uidB parameters have no descriptions and the tool description adds no parameter context. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap, leaving the semantics of the required parameters implicit.

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 '两 uid 元素间距' clearly indicates the tool's function: retrieving spacing between two UID-identified elements. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like style_click or style_hover, though the term 'spacing' is somewhat ambiguous (margin, distance, etc.).

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, or how it relates to sibling tools like style_status or style_tabs. The description gives no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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