press_button_verified

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

Description discloses the basic behavior (press and verify) but lacks detail on polling mechanics (wait_ms, poll_ms). No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but it is insufficient for a tool with polling parameters.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the core action and verification. No redundant information.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description lacks details about parameter semantics, return value, and differentiating guidance from 5+ sibling tools. For a tool with 5 parameters and spatial coordinates, this is insufficient.

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?

No parameter descriptions in the input schema (0% coverage) and the description does not explain any parameters. page, row, column, wait_ms, poll_ms are not described, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and units.

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?

Description clearly states the tool presses a button and verifies visible/runtime state change. It uses specific verb 'press' and resource 'button', and the verification aspect distinguishes it from tools like press_button.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The name 'verified' implies it's used when confirmation of state change is needed, but alternatives like press_button or verify_button_render_change are not mentioned.

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