steps

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

The annotations state that the tool is non-readOnly and non-destructive, but the description adds the important behavior: it stops immediately and reports the step reached when find is uncertain or wait/check fails. It also states that a trailing observe returns the elements it read, and it documents how the pause parameter is applied after each mouse or keyboard action.

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 dense but efficient: the core behavior comes first, followed by the step format and an example, then the failure and return semantics. The op list refers back to sibling tools instead of repeating the tool names, which is a saving.

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?

There are only two parameters and no output schema, so the remaining burden is the step structure and the failure behavior. Both are covered. The main omission is the overall shape of the return value when the batch succeeds or fails early.

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 coverage is only 50%; the steps array is typed only as a generic object and has no schema description. The description compensates by defining each step's shape ({"op": <tool name>, ...that tool's params}) and by providing a concrete four-step example. It does not enumerate every valid op or its required fields.

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 and resource: it executes a batch of operations in one call and deliberately avoids returning midway to ask. It is clearly distinguishable from the atomic siblings (click, type, find) because it batches them.

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 explicit usage guidance: "适合路径明确的多步操作", and it excludes screenshot from valid ops. However, it gives no guidance on when not to use it, for example when later steps depend on the result of an earlier one.

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