record_focus_path

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it simulates Tab presses, records focus landing, and flags invisible/hidden targets. However, it does not mention whether focus is restored after simulation or if there are side effects on the page state, but overall provides sufficient transparency for an interactive tool.

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 two sentences long, with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the action, the second provides usage context. It is well-structured and 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?

The description explains the output (record of focus positions with flags) and differentiates from sibling. However, it does not specify the exact format or data structure of the record, which would be helpful given no output schema. Overall, it is fairly complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description only adds the mention of 'N times' to reinforce the steps parameter, which does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Simulate Tab key presses N times and record where focus lands', with a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_tab_order' by noting it is an interactive alternative.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'use record_focus_path when you want to verify the actual focus behavior during keyboard navigation, and get_tab_order when you just need a static list.' This clearly states when to use this tool versus its alternative.

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