navegador_tecla

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails: it never says that the key goes to the currently focused element, that keys like Enter/Escape can submit forms or navigate away, or whether the action is reversible. Beyond restating the tool name it discloses nothing consequential.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by examples. Nothing is wasted and no restructuring would help.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for an interactive browser tool with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented confirmation flag, the definition is too thin to call it reliably — the agent cannot know whether a confirmation step is expected or what side effects to anticipate.

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 0% for two parameters. The description supplies useful key-name syntax for the required 'tecla' field, but the second parameter 'confirmado' (a confirmation boolean with default false) is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, which is a meaningful gap for an action that can mutate page state.

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 target ('Aperta uma tecla na página') and gives concrete key examples ('Enter', 'Tab', 'Escape', 'PageDown'), so the agent can tell it apart from navegador_clicar or navegador_preencher. It never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 press a key versus clicking or typing, no mention of focus or where the keypress lands, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that a page element needs focus for this to be meaningful.

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