调用页面工具（静态透传）

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

Discloses that it is a dumb pipe (A10) that forwards name/arguments without semantic understanding, and that it returns PAGE_NOT_CONNECTED when no bridge is established. With only readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, this adds meaningful behavioral context, though it doesn't specify side effects (which are delegated to the target 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then scenario, mechanism, and error case. Slightly long but each clause earns its place given the nuanced fallback use case.

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?

No output schema, so the description should explain the success return and how to discover valid tool names. It mentions examples but does not direct the agent to list_page_tools for available names, nor describe the success response shape; this is a gap for a generic passthrough tool.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds that arguments are forwarded 'as-is' and provides concrete name examples, clarifying that no transformation or validation occurs 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?

States a specific verb-resource pair: explicitly calls a page-provided document tool by name, and describes the static passthrough mechanism. The examples (read_document/insert_blocks) and contrast with host-visible tools distinguish it from siblings like list_page_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?

Gives a concrete applicable scenario: hosts that don't refresh tools/list, making newly paired page tools invisible. It explains why this tool exists and when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative (e.g., using the dynamically exposed tool or list_page_tools) in a 'use X instead' form.

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