perform_interaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only lists action names without explaining side effects, return values, or failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the selector is not found, or if a click triggers navigation). The 'verify selectors' hint is minimal.

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 sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and zero wasted words. The list of actions is compact and information-dense.

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?

Given no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate for a broad interaction tool but lacks depth about error handling or return behavior. The explicit 'use get_html first' guidance adds context, but more detail on what each action entails would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it mentions selectors but not specific parameters like text, value, or coordinates. It repeats the action list already present in the enum.

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 function with specific verbs (click, type, select, scroll, wait) and identifies the resource (page elements). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_html or execute_script by enumerating concrete interaction 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?

Explicitly instructs to use get_html first to verify selectors, providing a clear usage prerequisite. This implicitly advises when to use this tool (after confirming element presence) and points to an alternative (get_html) for inspection.

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