action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains it's a raw action, implies direct execution, and advises checking available actions via get_element. However, it doesn't mention error handling for invalid action names.

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: a one-sentence purpose, a two-sentence usage guideline, and a two-line parameter list. Front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown) and only two simple parameters, the description covers all necessary context: use case, prerequisite (get_element), and parameter explanations. No gaps for an agent to misuse.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explicitly explaining each parameter: element_id as 'The element ID' and action_name as 'Exact action name' with concrete examples like 'activate' and 'ShowMenu'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic titles.

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 it performs a raw accessibility action by exact name, using specific verbs and distinguishing from sibling convenience functions like click and focus.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (when convenience functions don't cover) and provides a step-by-step prerequisite: call get_element first to see actions list, then pass exact name. No misuse scenarios omitted.

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