导航到腾讯云控制台

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

The description discloses behaviors beyond the annotations: it auto-detects login/captcha status, attaches a screenshot when human intervention is needed, and returns a clear error if all candidate addresses are unavailable. The annotations only indicate openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds valuable context about side effects and error handling. No contradiction with annotations.

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 paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then lists targets, then explains behavioral details. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. It is concise yet comprehensive, covering all key aspects without unnecessary repetition.

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 navigation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, target options, and error handling. It does not explicitly describe the success response format, but given the tool's nature (navigation), the response is likely a status or screenshot, which is partially implied. The auto-detection and error behavior are well explained, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds some context (e.g., custom requires customUrl, screenshot is forced on login/captcha), but these details are also present in the schema's property descriptions. The description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score 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 the tool's purpose: '快捷导航到腾讯云控制台的指定页面' (quickly navigate to specified pages of Tencent Cloud console). It enumerates the four targets (dnspod, cvm, lighthouse, custom) and explains the auto-detection behavior. This is a specific verb+resource definition that distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_dns_record or configure_security_group, which perform different actions.

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 the tool: when you need to navigate to a Tencent Cloud console page. It provides a specific usage hint: '当腾讯云控制台改版时可据此改用 custom 目标' (when the console changes, use custom target). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like add_dns_record or interact_element, though the context of sibling tools makes the distinction clear. It could be more explicit about when not to use this tool.

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