page_info

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

The description discloses that omitting 'tab' targets the current active tab, which is a helpful behavioral detail. However, with no annotations provided, it does not mention read-only status, error handling, or behavior with invalid tab IDs, leaving the description to carry a heavier burden than it does.

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 extremely concise: a return signature and a default-value note. Every word is purposeful, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the description provides the core return shape and a key default. However, it lacks context on how to specify the tab integer (e.g., index or ID) and what happens on invalid input. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, this is adequate but not fully 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?

The schema lists 'tab' as an optional integer with no description. The description adds that omitting it targets the active tab, providing meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify what integer values represent (e.g., tab ID from list_tabs), but for a single parameter, this is partial compensation.

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 specifies the return value as {title, url}, indicating a tool that retrieves page metadata. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling content-fetching tools like get_markdown or page_text, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings. The only usage note is the default behavior of the 'tab' parameter ('tab 不传打当前活动标签'), which addresses invocation but not tool selection.

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