computer.fast

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the tool reads one snapshot and does not write to long-term memory, and mentions the optional API key, giving an agent useful behavioral expectations. However, it does not discuss side effects or whether the executed actions are reversible.

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 just two sentences, front-loading the key identity ('optional fast-action AI') and then explaining the one-snapshot/batch behavior and memory characteristics. Every sentence contributes meaning without 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 six parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain any parameter semantics, expected return format, or error/handling behavior. While the purpose is clear, the lack of operational detail makes it incomplete for reliable invocation, especially given that the schema already leaves many parameters undocumented.

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 contains no information about the six parameters, and the schema itself only describes 33% of them. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the meaning of 'window', 'goal', 'maxNodes', and 'maxActions' to the agent. This significantly hampers correct usage.

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 identifies the tool as a fast-action AI that reads a compact UI snapshot once and batch-executes actions, clearly conveying its core function. It distinguishes itself from broader action tools by emphasizing the 'fast' nature and lack of long-term memory, though it does not explicitly reference sibling tool names.

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 implies usage context by characterizing the tool as an optional fast-action method that performs a single snapshot read and batch actions. It also notes that it does not write to long-term memory, suggesting scenarios where memory persistence is not needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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