release_handles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions cleaning up cached handles but does not warn that released handles become invalid for subsequent operations, nor does it state anything about return values or side effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive cleanup operation.

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 purpose and reason. It is efficient with no wasted words.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. However, it lacks important contextual detail about the consequences of releasing handles (e.g., invalidating references), which an agent should know before invocation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'scope' parameter, including a clear description and enum values. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it cleans up cached page/element handles ('清理缓存的 page / element 句柄') to prevent unbounded growth, providing a specific verb, resource, and rationale. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that query or manipulate pages/elements rather than managing handle lifecycle.

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 gives a clear context for when to use the tool: when handles might grow indefinitely ('防止句柄无限增长'). It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide. The scope parameter further clarifies usage options.

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