computeruse_execute_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses single-action execution, dry_run validation without sending events, and optional verification screenshots. It doesn't detail failure behavior or output, but it significantly clarifies side effects and validation.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by important validation/verification traits and a sequencing instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers the observe-act-observe cycle, dry_run, and verification well. However, it does not mention what the tool returns, how failures are reported, or the terminal significance of done/fail actions. Given no annotations and no output schema, these are meaningful gaps for a complex tool.

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 67%, and the schema already documents dry_run, verify, settle_ms, include_elements, and per-action args in detail. The description only highlights dry_run and verification screenshot without adding meaning beyond the schema, so it meets but doesn't exceed 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 the tool's purpose: it executes exactly one ComputerUse action using the latest observation. This distinguishes it from observation and session-management siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative it is not.

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 clear operational context: use the latest observation for coordinate and element mapping, and call observe or inspect verification before the next step. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing, but the workflow is evident.

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