列出已连接页面

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clarifies the read-only nature of the operation, the scope of 'currently connected' pages, and the exact data returned. For a simple listing tool, this is sufficient transparency, though it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur.

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 that states the action, scope, and returned fields without any fluff. Every part of the sentence carries meaningful information.

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 parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies what will be listed, the scope of the listing, and the exact fields included. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result.

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 an empty properties object. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail, satisfying the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 '列出' (list), the resource (all browser pages currently connected to web-bridge-mcp via client.js), and the exact output fields (pageId, title, URL, connection time). This makes it easy for an agent to distinguish from the sibling interaction 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 implies the primary use case: obtaining pageId and connection status before interacting with browser pages through sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions, so usage guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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