laya_run_goal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload (transcript, snapshot, verification) and the fallback behavior, which is helpful. However, it does not reveal whether the tool may perform mutating actions on the page, any safety considerations, or how the decision engine behaves. The disclosure is partial.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, the return items are listed succinctly, and the fallback is mentioned briefly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complex tool (autopilot with a decision engine) with no annotations and no output schema. The description is sparse: it does not explain what the Laya engine is, what kinds of goals are appropriate, any performance expectations, or how the agent should interpret the verification result. Given the complexity, the description is under-specified.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning—only the mention of 'current (or given) page' for the url parameter. It does not enrich the goal or maxSteps parameters beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a specific verb ('pursue') and a clear resource ('a natural-language goal on the current (or given) page'), and distinguishes itself from the low-level browser_* siblings by framing it as an autopilot that delegates to the Laya decision engine. This clearly separates it from the granular operations.

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 natural-language goals and mentions the fallback to Assist-mode tools when weights are absent, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus the low-level browser tools or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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