detectModals

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

No annotations are provided, and the description omits any behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the tool reads the DOM, modifies state, returns results, or requires specific connection setup. The agent has no insight into side effects or limitations.

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 extremely concise (two words), but this brevity sacrifices clarity and completeness. While front-loaded, it fails to convey any useful information beyond the tool name, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain the return value, the interpretation of 'detect modals', and how the parameters affect behavior. It provides none of this, leaving the tool's complete behavior ambiguous for a moderate-complexity tool with 4 parameters.

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% with individual parameter descriptions. However, the tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents each field adequately.

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 'Detect modals' is vague. It states a verb and resource but does not clarify what detection entails (e.g., finding modals in the DOM, checking for an open modal). Without context, the agent may confuse this with inspection or sibling tool 'dismissModal'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dismissModal' or 'inspect'. The agent receives no hints about prerequisites, expected state, or appropriate scenarios.

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