computer.act

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions 'execute and verify' without detailing behaviors such as whether it simulates user input, whether it is reversible, what happens on failure, or whether it requires the window to be active. For a mutating tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks necessary details, making it under-specified. It is not as effective as a concise yet informative description.

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 complex action semantics with multiple action types and timing rules, yet neither the description nor annotations provide all necessary context about execution order, verification behavior, error handling, or return values. The schema covers some action details, but the overall description is incomplete.

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 description does not add meaning to the parameters; the actions parameter already has a detailed schema description, but the window parameter's semantics are not clarified beyond its name. With only 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented window parameter.

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 '在指定窗口中执行并验证一组声明式动作' clearly states the tool executes and verifies declarative actions in a specified window. It uses a specific verb and resource, which distinguishes it from passive observation tools like computer.inspect or computer.screenshot, though it does not explicitly contrast with computer.verify or computer.invoke.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as computer.verify or computer.invoke. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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