stagehand_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds a behavioral detail: 'uses both DOM-based and coordinate-based actions for maximum reliability.' However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, return behavior, or the fact that the agent may navigate and interact with external pages, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Execute a task autonomously') and a supporting operational detail ('uses both DOM-based and coordinate-based actions'). Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy.

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?

This is a high-complexity agent tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description is minimal. It does not explain what the agent will do beyond 'execute a task,' how it handles variables or steps, or what the result will look like. The rich parameter schema helps but does not compensate for the missing behavioral and output context.

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%, with detailed descriptions for all three parameters (prompt, maxSteps, variables) already provided in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Execute a task autonomously using Stagehand agent in hybrid mode.' The verb 'execute' and resource 'task' are specific, and the mention of 'autonomously' distinguishes it from more targeted sibling tools like stagehand_act or stagehand_extract, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage for autonomous, multi-step tasks through the word 'autonomously' and 'hybrid mode,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks direct guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools.

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