page_stack

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a side effect: registering a page_id handle. However, it does not explain the purpose of the handle, whether it requires cleanup (e.g., via release_handles), or any other behavioral traits like ordering or inclusion of the current page. 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. The parenthetical clarifies the scope and side effect without waste. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should clearly explain return value and any side effects. It does state that it returns the page stack and registers a handle, but it leaves important gaps: what is the handle used for, does it need releasing, and what is the return structure (array of objects, ids, etc.)? It is adequate for a simple getter but misses key contextual details about the handle lifecycle.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed since the schema is empty and coverage is 100%. The description's mention of what the tool returns (page stack and handle) provides context 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?

The description uses a specific verb (获取/get) and resource (页面栈/page stack), and explicitly states it retrieves all open pages while registering a page_id handle. This distinguishes it from siblings like current_page (which likely retrieves just the current page) and page_size (which likely returns the stack size).

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 such as current_page or page_query. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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