ruyi_dom_input

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the basic action. It does not mention default clearing behavior, event dispatch, file upload limitations, or any effects on the page beyond the input itself. The 'clear' parameter in the schema is the only behavioral hint, but the description does not elaborate.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately clarifying the upload capability. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary details or repetition.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, making the description the sole source of contextual information. It is too brief to cover important behaviors like clearing by default, event dispatch, or how file uploads work, and it does not mention the 'pageIdx' parameter at all. An agent would need more context to invoke this tool reliably in complex scenarios.

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 adds meaning by clarifying that the 'text' parameter can be either a normal text string or a file path for upload, which goes beyond the schema's basic description. However, it does not explain 'pageIdx' or 'clear', though schema coverage is 75% and those fields have their own descriptions. The added upload semantics justify a score above the baseline.

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 that the tool inputs text or uploads files to DOM elements, explicitly mentioning support for both regular text and file path upload. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ruyi_human_input, which simulate human input rather than direct DOM manipulation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ruyi_human_input or other DOM interaction tools. The description only lists capabilities without providing context, exclusions, or recommended scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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