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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without any side effects, permissions, or behavior with existing bookmarks. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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. However, it is minimal to the point of under-specification, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

With 4 parameters and a creation tool, the description is too sparse. It does not mention default folder placement, browser targeting, or any side effects. The output schema exists but does not cover behavioral context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but each parameter has a descriptive schema entry. The description does not compensate or enhance beyond the 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 '添加一条新书签' (Add a new bookmark) clearly states the verb (add) and resource (bookmark). It is distinct from sibling tools like search_bookmarks, list_bookmarks, and recent_bookmarks, which perform different actions.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the action is self-evident given the sibling tool names. It implies usage for creating bookmarks but lacks any exclusion or alternative guidance.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose read-only behavior, whether subfolders are included recursively, how limit interacts with many bookmarks, or what happens when folder_path is null (though the schema does). The description only restates the core purpose, adding minimal behavioral context.

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 that immediately conveys the tool's function. Every word is purposeful, and it is well-structured.

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 schema and output schema cover the parameter and return details, so the description is not required to repeat them. However, the tool sits among several bookmark-related siblings, and the description fails to provide context about when this listing approach is preferred over searching or browsing recent bookmarks. It is minimally complete but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions 'specified folder' which aligns with folder_path but adds no additional meaning or syntax tips beyond the 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 clearly states the action ('list') and the resource ('bookmarks'), with a specific scoping condition ('under specified folder'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_bookmarks, recent_bookmarks, and list_folders by focusing on folder-filtered listing.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that search_bookmarks might be better for keyword filtering, or that list_folders can be used to discover valid folder paths. The context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention that the browser parameter selects the browser to list folders from, nor any other behavioral traits like ordering, filtering, or side effects. This is a clear gap for a parameterized tool.

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 clear sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded and wastes no words.

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 low complexity, one optional parameter, and an existing output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context beyond the literal action, so it is not fully complete.

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 single parameter 'browser' has a full description in the schema ('chrome' or 'edge'), providing 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool's action: 'List all bookmark folders.' It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (bookmark folders), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_bookmarks by targeting folders specifically.

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 when to use this tool (when you need bookmark folders rather than bookmarks), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context of sibling tools helps, but the description itself offers no direct guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, ordering, pagination, or any side effects. It only states what the tool does, not how it behaves.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no superfluous information. Perfectly concise.

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 tool is simple and schema covers parameters, but with no annotations, the description lacks behavioral context and alternative guidance. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, with limit and browser both described. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 '获取最近添加的书签' (get recently added bookmarks) uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_bookmarks (all bookmarks) and search_bookmarks (search).

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 context implies use for retrieving recent bookmarks, but no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this over list_bookmarks or search_bookmarks. The usage is inferred rather than stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that matching is case-insensitive and covers title and URL, which is useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention the read-only nature (though obvious for search), default browser behavior, or any potential side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 that front-loads the verb and object. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or irrelevant content.

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 simple two-parameter search tool, the description is adequately complete. It covers the core behavior, and the presence of an output schema presumably handles return-value details. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of the browser parameter, but this is covered in the schema.

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 100% with descriptions for both keyword and browser, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic value to the keyword parameter by explaining how it is used (matching title and URL case-insensitively), going beyond the schema's simple 'search keyword'.

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 a specific verb ('search') and resource ('bookmarks'), and further specifies that it matches title and URL case-insensitively. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bookmarks and add_bookmark, which have different purposes.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool to use when you need to find bookmarks by keyword. However, there are no explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives (e.g., when to use list_bookmarks instead). The sibling names provide context, but the description itself does not offer explicit guidance.

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