interact_responsive_session

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

Adds real context beyond the openWorldHint/readOnlyHint annotations: state persists between calls, semantic locators are preferred because the DOM varies by viewport, and failures are returned per screen. Missing detail on partial-failure semantics (does the batch abort?) and timeouts.

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?

Dense but well front-loaded: execution scope comes first, then state persistence, locator strategy, targeting advice, and the follow-up tool. A couple of sentences could be trimmed but nothing is wasted.

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 complex batched-action tool with no output schema, reporting per-screen failures is helpful and the observe_responsive_session pointer closes the loop. However, step execution order, failure handling, and return shape for successes remain unexplained.

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 67% and the description only adds the screenId='all' default (already in the schema) plus the sessionId lineage from open_responsive_session. The 17-value action enum and the 40-item step cap are left entirely to the schema, so the description adds little parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ejecuta pasos en una pantalla o repite la secuencia en todas'), including the cross-screen broadcast mode. It is distinguishable from navigate_responsive_session and observe_responsive_session, though it does not name the closest sibling interact_on.

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?

Gives concrete when-to guidance: use screenId='all' to repeat across screens, target a specific screenId when a menu only exists on mobile, and call observe_responsive_session afterward to inspect results. No explicit 'when not to use' or pointer to interact_on/navigate_responsive_session.

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