获取本工具完整使用指南

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return value (SKILL.md full text), the lack of a restart requirement, and the dynamic refresh on re-call. It does not explicitly mention side effects or output size, but for a read-only guide fetch these are minor omissions.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the parenthetical content list tells the agent exactly what the guide covers. The usage advice and refresh behavior are packed efficiently into the second sentence.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description tells the agent what it returns, what the guide contains, when to call it, and when to re-call it after updates. Nothing required to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are fully determined by the empty input schema.

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 opens with the verb '返回' (returns) and a specific resource: web-bridge-mcp 的完整使用指南 (full SKILL.md). It lists concrete contents such as workflows, eval_js syntax, preset functions, and troubleshooting, which makes it easy to distinguish from the sibling browser-automation tools.

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 explicitly recommends calling this tool before first use of the MCP's tools, and states that after the guide file is updated, calling again returns the latest version without a restart. This is a clear when-to-use condition, and no sibling tool competes for this purpose.

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