Go to page element

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that activation can follow links or press buttons (consistent with the destructive flag) and that the cursor is first moved and the element read, but it doesn't say what happens with a stale or invalid id, whether focus must be in a document, or what side effects activation may cause beyond the element itself.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and the optional activation branch. No filler, though the trailing 'or activate it' slightly duplicates rather than expands the meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the five-parameter timing model is fully covered by the schema. The remaining gap is operational preconditions (browse mode, target window focus, behavior on stale ids) for a tool whose annotations flag destructive, non-idempotent side effects.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (id, activate, settle_ms, timeout_ms, until_speech) is already documented in detail, including the default 400ms settle and 3000ms timeout semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Move NVDA's browse mode cursor to an element') and ties the input to a named sibling, nvda_list_elements, so an agent knows the source of valid ids. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings like nvda_focus_object and nvda_activate_object, which also move/act on objects.

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?

It implies usage by requiring an id 'from the last nvda_list_elements result' and explains that activate performs the equivalent of Enter in the Elements List. There is no explicit when-to-use versus nvda_focus_object/nvda_activate_object, and no stated prerequisites such as browse mode being active or a document window being focused.

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