ghost_act

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It precisely states that the window is never raised, the cursor never moves, which UIA/Win32 mechanisms are used, what response fields are reported, and how focus_guard behaves when a provider steals foreground. This is exemplary transparency for a mutation tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 dense but front-loaded: the purpose is stated first, followed by behavior, caveats, and retry guidance. Every sentence carries technical value, though the length is considerable and the closing compatibility note about 'background=true' slightly repeats information already given 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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers a lot: response reporting, visible-change verification, hidden-desktop support, and foreground restoration. It is still missing guidance on the 'mode' parameter and the intended meaning of 'text' versus 'text_input', which an agent would need to select the right arguments confidently.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: name|role identification, window anchoring, background default behavior, and the effect of type/click mechanisms. However, the 'mode' parameter's enumerated values (instant/deliberate/instant_only) and the 'text'/'description' parameters remain unexplained despite only 50% schema coverage, so compensation is strong but incomplete.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Find an element and act on it in one call,' making the combined find-and-act behavior immediately clear. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like ghost_find and ghost_see by emphasizing the one-call action model and the background/covered-window capability.

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 conveys when to use ghost_act: when the target window may be covered, hidden, or on a Chromium/Electron desktop page. It also gives an explicit fallback instruction: 'verified=false ... ghost_see before retrying.' It does not enumerate exclusions or contrast directly with ghost_tab_* tools, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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