navegador_preencher

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

With no annotations supplied, the description usefully discloses text-based list selection and a consent-gated safeguard for sensitive password input. It does not clarify whether existing content is replaced, whether filling triggers submission, or how invalid targets are handled.

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 compact and front-loads the core operation, then adds list behavior and the password safeguard. Every sentence supplies distinct, actionable information without filler.

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 simple three-parameter tool with an output schema, this covers enough targeting, value-selection, and safety behavior to support most invocations. It would be more complete with the source of numeric field identifiers, browser-page prerequisites, and a brief distinction from sibling input tools.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the text explains that the target may be a number or label, that list values are matched by option text, and what confirmado controls. The meaning of numeric targets and any expectations for valor in ordinary fields remain somewhat implicit.

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?

“Preenche um campo” states a clear action and resource, while “Em listas, escolhe a opção pelo texto” clarifies select-list behavior. It does not explicitly distinguish this browser tool from siblings such as navegador_clicar, navegador_tecla, or janela_digitar.

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 concrete usage contexts for ordinary fields and lists, plus an explicit restriction for password fields: use confirmado=true only with the user's approval. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or when to prefer a sibling tool, but the conditional password rule is useful operational guidance.

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