get_button_runtime_summary

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Return a compact runtime-oriented summary', which implies a read operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The agent receives minimal transparency about the tool's behavior.

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 of 9 words, making it very concise. However, conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, as critical information (e.g., parameter context, sibling differentiation) is omitted. It is appropriately front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description could rely on that for return value details, but it still fails to provide enough context for the agent to decide when to invoke this tool. The three parameters are unexplained, and there is no differentiation from similar tools. The description is incomplete for a tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions.

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?

The input schema has three required parameters (page, row, column) with no descriptions, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter names; it does not explain what these coordinates represent or their expected format, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance to correctly provide values.

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 returns a 'compact runtime-oriented summary for a button', indicating a read operation providing a specific type of information. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_button_info', which likely provides a different kind of button information, leading to potential confusion.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools like 'get_button_info' or 'press_button'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

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