wavexis_act

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only, not destructive, and open-world. The description adds minor context about taking a snapshot and performing actions, but does not disclose potential side effects, failure modes, or accuracy considerations. With annotations present, the description is adequate but not additional.

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 brief and contains no unnecessary words. It front-loads the main purpose and includes args and returns in a structured format. A minor improvement would be to place the action types earlier.

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 complexity of a natural language action tool with nested inputs and an output schema, the description lacks sufficient detail. It does not cover error handling, success criteria, or how to interpret the returned score/status. The presence of many sibling tools makes completeness more important.

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 0% (though `instruction` has a description inside the nested type). The description lists the three parameters without adding meaningful detail about `session_id` or `max_retries` beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain the format or constraints 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 clearly states that the tool executes a natural language instruction on the current page using accessibility snapshots. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wavexis_click or wavexis_type by being a higher-level, instruction-driven action tool. However, it could be more explicit about the mechanism and scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the specific action tools (e.g., wavexis_click, wavexis_hover). It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where alternative tools would be preferable.

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