http_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions it returns HTML and is a pure HTTP GET, implying no browser involvement, but doesn't disclose things like redirect handling, status code behavior, error handling, or whether it follows redirects. With zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

Two short sentences in Chinese, front-loaded with an illustrative signature. Every sentence carries meaning; there is no filler. It is appropriately concise, though it could arguably be slightly longer to explain the timeout parameter.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage means the description is the only guide. For a 2-param tool with a timeout and return of HTML, it should explain the timeout semantics, possible failures, and how it differs from browser-based page fetching. The current description is too sparse for the agent to select and invoke confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for understanding the two parameters. It references the url conceptually in the signature example but does not explain the timeout parameter at all. The agent cannot infer whether timeout is seconds/ms or what the default is.

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 (GET) and resource (URL) and says it returns HTML strings for static pages/APIs. It distinguishes from siblings somewhat, but the purpose is clear even though it doesn't explicitly contrast with page_html/page_text, which are apparent siblings that also fetch content.

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 says "用于静态页/API" (for static pages/APIs), giving implied context on when to use. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives. Given the many content-fetching siblings (page_html, page_text, get_markdown, get_response_body), the description could guide the agent on choosing between raw HTTP GET and browser-based page fetching, but doesn't.

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