Login + captura

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the main steps (fill selectors, submit form, capture), but it does not mention failure modes, what happens after login, or the output format. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with action and purpose. Every word earns its place, with no padding or redundancy.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description barely covers the core workflow and omits crucial context like how to direct output, behavior after login, and customization of selectors. It is incomplete for practical use.

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 parameter meaning. It only generically mentions 'selectores CSS' and does not explain parameters like afterLoginUrlIncludes, width, height, outputPath, or the default selectors. Most of the 11 parameters remain undocumented.

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 fills username/password in CSS selectors, submits the form, and captures. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from the sibling 'capture_url' by explicitly mentioning authentication.

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?

It explicitly marks the tool as 'Útil para dashboards autenticados' (useful for authenticated dashboards), providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives for non-authenticated cases, but the sibling context implies it, so it stops short of a 5.

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