wavexis_act

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

The description discloses the tool's behavior: it takes a snapshot, matches instruction, and performs the action. It lists possible actions and the return format. Annotations indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent, and not destructive. However, there is no mention of what happens if the instruction cannot be matched, or if the action fails, or any side effects like page navigation. The transparency is adequate but could be improved with more behavioral details.

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 very concise: two sentences for purpose, then a bulleted list of args and returns. No fluff. It immediately states the purpose and action detection mechanism.

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 explains the tool's mechanism, inputs, and output format. With an output schema described in the text, the agent has sufficient information to use the tool. However, it lacks examples of natural language instructions or usage patterns, which could enhance completeness. Still, it covers core contextual needs.

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 input schema already includes descriptions for each parameter, such as 'Natural language instruction' and 'Active session ID'. The description only lists the parameter names without adding new semantics. Given the schema's comprehensive descriptions, the tool description does not provide additional value for parameter understanding. Hence score 3.

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: executing natural language instructions on the current page using a11y snapshot and action detection. It explicitly lists the actions it can perform (click, type, fill, hover), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that are more specific (e.g., wavexis_click, wavexis_fill) or those that require explicit selectors.

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 does not explicitly provide usage guidelines or mention when to use this tool over alternatives like wavexis_nl_click or wavexis_nl_fill. It implies use for general natural language instructions but lacks direction on when not to use it or how it differs from other natural language tools. The required session_id parameter is documented, but no broader context.

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