Interact with a webpage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the default return type ('text accessibility snapshot') and provides guidance on the screenshot parameter ('only when you actually need to see pixels'). However, it does not mention potential side effects, execution behavior, error handling, or session persistence, leaving some ambiguity for a tool that performs live page interactions.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and method, followed by crucial output and performance guidance. Every word earns its place; no fluff or 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?

Given no output schema and 6 parameters, the description covers the core purpose and default output, but omits details on action sequence semantics, session handling, ignoreRobots, and potential failure modes. It is sufficient for basic understanding but lacks the depth needed for fully complex interaction scenarios.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It names the allowed action types (click, fill, select, press, waitFor) and explains the screenshot default, which adds useful semantics. Yet it does not describe the structure of action objects, the url parameter, ignoreRobots, or other key fields beyond what the schema already provides. The partial compensation justifies a mid-range score.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Run a sequence of actions... on a live page.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'reaching content behind interaction' and returning a 'text accessibility snapshot,' making it clear this tool is for interaction rather than simple scraping or crawling.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'for testing flows or reaching content behind interaction.' It implies it should be used when page interaction is required, as opposed to static scraping. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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