campus_act

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond that: the manual-only restriction on auth fields, the exact accepted key values for press, and the recommendation to defer the export click to campus_export. It omits whether actions are reversible or how page-state staleness is handled.

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-loaded with the core purpose followed by per-action rules and the sibling routing note. No filler, though the opening sentence is slightly vague compared to the crisp action-specific lines that follow.

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 4-parameter, 0%-schema-coverage automation tool with no output schema, the description covers action semantics and key routing decisions but leaves ref and provider undefined and says nothing about failure behavior or what a successful act returns. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 carry parameter meaning. It partly does: it explains what value means for select and check, and constrains press's value set. However, 'ref' (presumably an element handle obtained from campus_inspect) and 'provider' are never explained, leaving two of four parameters undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: operating a visible UI control to choose tables, fields, dates and filters. It distinguishes itself from campus_export by naming that sibling as the tool for the final export click, but the abstract phrasing 'operate a current visible control' leaves the exact mechanism (browser automation on refs) somewhat implicit.

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?

It gives concrete per-action guidance (select takes an option value, check takes 'true'/'false', press is limited to Enter/Tab/Escape/Arrows/Space) and an explicit exclusion (login/OTP/password fields are manual-only) plus a routing rule to campus_export for provenance. It does not clarify when to choose click versus fill, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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