interact_with_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only lists actions and does not disclose behavioral traits such as failure handling, session prerequisites, or side effects. The schema includes some behavioral details (e.g., sequence stops on first failure), but the description does not repeat or add to them.

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 sentence listing actions, which is concise and front-loaded. It could be slightly more informative (e.g., noting session requirement or execution order) but remains efficient without unnecessary verbosity.

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 complexity (array of actions with many subproperties) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, execution flow, or error behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively despite the rich schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond listing action types; parameter details are fully covered by the schema.

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 performs multiple interactions (click, type, hover, select, screenshot, wait, scroll) on a page, distinguishing it from siblings like 'interact_with_element' (single action) and 'take_screenshot' (screenshot only).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The list of actions implies it is for sequences, but no guidance on prerequisites or exclusion cases is provided. Sibling names offer context, but the description lacks direct usage heuristics.

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