eda_sys_window_url_push_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it adds a new URL history entry, but does not mention side effects like navigation behavior, whether it changes the browser URL, impact on back/forward buttons, or if it requires a specific window context. The description essentially restates the function name without additional insight into its operational effects.

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 concise with a single signature line and one sentence of Chinese text. It is not bloated, but it is under-specified: it lacks any contextual framing or differentiation from similar tools. It is minimal but not necessarily well-structured for an agent, as it does not front-load the most decision-relevant information (e.g., when to use push vs replace).

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 push-state operation, the description is minimally adequate, but it does not explain the behavioral implications (e.g., how it affects navigation history, whether it triggers a page load, or how it interacts with windowId). Given there is no output schema and no annotations, more context would be expected to fully guide an agent, especially to differentiate from the replace_state sibling.

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 both args (JSON parameter array in official signature order) and windowId (target window ID, optional) documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the url parameter or how it should be formatted, but the schema already provides adequate coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema handles parameter documentation.

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 the operation clearly: 'sys_Window.urlPushState(url: string) -> void' and '追加新的 URL 历史记录栈信息' (add new URL history stack info). It names the specific action (push new history entry) and the resource (window URL history). However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling eda_sys_window_url_replace_state, which would clarify the difference between push and replace.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that push should be used when you want to add a new history entry (enabling back navigation) as opposed to replace_state which overwrites the current entry. No usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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