eda_sys_environment_is_web

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the return type (boolean) and the semantic meaning (whether in browser environment), but doesn't disclose edge cases, what 'web' means in contrast to 'client', or any side effects. For a simple read-only check, this is minimal but not misleading.

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 very short and front-loaded with the function signature and return type. The Chinese text repeats the same meaning as the signature, which is slightly redundant, but the overall size is appropriate for a simple boolean check tool.

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 environment check, the description is mostly complete, but it lacks context about the distinction between 'web' and 'client' environments, which is relevant given sibling tools like eda_sys_environment_is_client. No output schema exists, so the return value description ('boolean') is helpful but could be more explicit about what true/false means in practical terms.

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%, so the schema already documents the two parameters (args array and windowId). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the parameters.

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 specific verb and resource: 'sys_Environment.isWeb() -> boolean' and '是否处于浏览器环境' (whether in browser environment). It clearly indicates this is a boolean environment check. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like eda_sys_environment_is_client, but the name and description make the purpose clear enough.

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 like eda_sys_environment_is_client, eda_sys_environment_is_offline_mode, etc. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives.

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