eda_sys_client_url_request

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it returns a Fetch result, which is already implied by the signature. It does not disclose potential side effects, async behavior, network failures, CORS restrictions, or any limitations. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 compact, consisting of a single-line signature and a brief Chinese phrase. It is front-loaded with the signature, but the lack of explanatory structure or sections makes it less scannable and does not help an agent quickly grasp semantics beyond the types.

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 tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value structure (beyond 'Fetch result'), error handling, or how to construct the 'data' or 'options' objects. An agent would likely need additional documentation to invoke it correctly.

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 description includes the full function signature with all parameters and their types (url, method, data, options, succeedCallFn), which significantly exceeds the input schema that only describes an 'args' array and 'windowId'. However, it lacks natural-language explanations of what each parameter does beyond names, so it falls short of a 5.

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 states a clear verb ('发起即时请求' / initiate immediate request) and the resource (a client URL request via sys_ClientUrl.request). It is distinct from siblings like websocket or iframe tools, though it doesn't explicitly name any alternative. The signature makes the intent unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. It simply states the action without any use-case context or conditions for selection.

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