wavexis_type

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'character by character.' It does not disclose side effects like scrolling into view or focusing the element, which would be valuable for an agent.

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 front-loaded with the main action. The docstring style for Args/Returns is standard but adds minimal value. It is appropriately sized for a simple typing action.

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 complex input schema (8 parameters) and annotations indicating side effects, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain how the tool interacts with the page (e.g., does it wait for element? does it handle iframes?). The output is vaguely described as returning a status string.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only lists three parameters (selector, text, delay) without explaining their meaning, purpose, or relationships. Critical parameters like session_id, wait_timeout, backend, and headless are omitted entirely.

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 'Type text into an element character by character.' This uses a specific verb ('type') and resource ('element'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings like wavexis_fill (which likely fills fields all at once) and wavexis_click (clicking).

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 implies use for character-by-character typing but does not explicitly tell when to use this versus alternatives like wavexis_fill or wavexis_key_press. Sibling tools exist but no guidance on selection criteria is provided.

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