ghost_tab_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose non-obvious traits: the action is layout-independent and does not touch the user's keyboard. However, it says nothing about the default clearing behavior, whether the field value is replaced or appended, visibility requirements, or failure behavior.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the core action and adds only high-value differentiators. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks parameter semantics, default behavior for 'clear', browser/tab context, and guidance on selecting this tool from its many siblings. An agent would need to inspect the schema and infer too much.

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 only 20%, and the description only clarifies 'selector' by mentioning CSS selector. It does not explain the meaning or format of 'tab', 'text', or 'browser', though some are inferable from names. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Focus an element by CSS selector and type into it'), naming both the resource and the operation. It adds useful differentiators ('Layout-independent; does not touch the user's keyboard') that separate it from keyboard-level siblings, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 when element-focused, layout-independent typing is needed without affecting the user's keyboard, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like ghost_key, ghost_tab_press, or ghost_tab_text. There is no when-not-to-use guidance.

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