navvi_fill

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

The description discloses key behaviors: OS-level xdotool usage, triple-click for selection, and replacement typing. However, it does not explain the effect of the delay parameter, the role of persona, or potential side effects like mouse position changes or field focus 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 tightly written with no extraneous content. It front-loads the action and provides the key mechanism (triple-click) in a single sentence. Every sentence adds essential 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?

Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers the core workflow but omits parameter details for delay and persona. The presence of an output schema may compensate, but without its content, completeness is moderate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains x, y (coordinates) and value (text to type), but fails to describe delay (likely inter-step timing) and persona (possibly user profile). This leaves two parameters undocumented, reducing semantic value.

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 the tool clicks at coordinates to focus an input field, selects all text via triple-click, and types a replacement value. It differentiates from siblings like navvi_click (which only clicks) and navvi_press (which types without selection).

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 implies use for filling input fields by replacing text, but does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for non-input elements) or compare with alternatives like combining navvi_click and navvi_press. No guidance on prerequisites or edge cases.

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