glass_do

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses fail-fast behavior (reports which index failed and how many ran), the rejection of `type`'s `return` observe inside actions, and the meaning of `settle` (waits for the screen to stop changing). This is strong context, though it does not detail side effects or permissions.

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 five sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then structure, failure behavior, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, though the density makes it slightly harder to scan. For a tool with this complexity, it is efficient and appropriately sized.

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 tool's complexity and the absence of annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It covers the batch use case, supported action types, failure reporting, the optional terminal observe, and explicit when-not-to-use guidance. The rich schema fills in any remaining parameter-level details.

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 100% and provides detailed descriptions for `actions` and `then` as well as all nested action arguments. The description adds high-level clarification about the actions list structure and the excluded `return` field, but it mostly reiterates schema information. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 runs an ordered sequence of input actions in one call, then optionally observes. It explicitly lists the action types (click, move, drag, scroll, type, key, settle) and explains the optional `then` observe, which distinguishes it from sibling per-action tools.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use for KNOWN sequences (login, form-fill, menu→item); if you must see a result to choose the next action, don't batch that part.' This clearly states when to use the tool and when not to, differentiating it from individual action tools that allow incremental decisions.

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