page_query_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (array of element_id handles) and a critical behavioral limit (only last 1000 handles available when >1000). This goes beyond basic query behavior.

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 well-structured sentence: main action first, then parenthetical return/limit detail. Every word contributes, no redundancy.

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 query tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return format, and a key limit. It does not explicitly mention potential errors or required permissions, but given the simplicity and sibling context, it is adequately 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?

Schema coverage is 50% with only selector having a description. The tool description adds little: it mentions 'in the page' to contextualize page_id but does not explain page_id format or semantics beyond that. Selector description in schema already says WXSS selector, and the description repeats that.

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 action: query all matching elements in a page using a WXSS selector, and specifies the return type. The 'all' in the name and description distinguishes it from page_query (first match) and XPath variants.

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 it (when all matches are needed) through the word '所有' (all), but it does not explicitly provide alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. It offers no comparison to page_query or page_query_xpath_all.

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