MCP-Midscene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('inputs text') but lacks critical details: whether this requires a pre-existing active browser session, what happens on failure (e.g., if the element isn't found), or any side effects like page navigation. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 UI automation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like error handling, dependencies on other tools (e.g., navigation or tab selection), or what the tool returns upon success. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters ('value' and 'locate'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of natural language selectors or formatting tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 with a specific verb ('inputs') and resource ('text into a specified form field or element'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'midscene_aiTap' or 'midscene_aiKeyboardPress', which might have overlapping UI interaction purposes.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., web automation scenarios), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list alone.

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