jev_host_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool may click a field first, that the typed text is not returned, and that execution should resume with jev_browser_run. It does not describe error cases or behavior when field is omitted, but the important side effects and workflow constraints are surfaced.

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?

Four short sentences front-load the main action and then efficiently add the prerequisite, the output caveat, and the follow-up step. Every sentence adds necessary operational information with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough operational context to make the call and continue the workflow. The main missing detail is explicit guidance on the optional field parameter and what counts as a valid value, but the overall flow is well covered.

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, and it does name all three parameters: text is host-supplied, field is the field to click first, and session_id is reused with jev_browser_run. However, it does not clarify that field is optional (though the schema marks it optional) nor describe acceptable formats or selector syntax, leaving some ambiguity.

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, actionable purpose: 'Type text supplied by the host into the open Chrome session.' It clearly identifies the action, the target, and the source of the text. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, though it references jev_browser_run as a follow-up, which helps locate its role.

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 communicates when to use the tool: when the host has supplied text for Jev to type, and it warns 'Jev never chooses this text.' It also provides a prerequisite ('Pass field to click that text field first') and a required continuation ('resume with jev_browser_run and the same session_id'). It does not spell out when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the intended workflow is clear.

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