puppeteer_fill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to specify whether the fill action clears the field first, appends text, triggers events, or waits for ready state. For a browser automation tool, such omissions are critical and yield a score of 1.

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?

At five words, the description is extremely concise but at the cost of critical information. It omits necessary details about behavior, prerequisites, and side effects. This is under-specification, not efficient conciseness, warranting a score of 2.

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 behavioral ambiguity, lack of output schema, and zero annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not clarify return value, error conditions, or interaction with page state. A score of 1 reflects its inadequacy for safe, informed use.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with both ‘selector’ and ‘value’ described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage (e.g., format of selectors, allowed value types). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does 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 'Fill out an input field' is a near-tautology of the tool name 'puppeteer_fill', providing no additional specificity. It neither distinguishes from sibling tools like puppeteer_select (which handles dropdowns) nor explains what 'fill out' entails (e.g., typing vs. setting value). A score of 2 reflects the lack of unique semantic contribution.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools (click, hover, select, etc.) have overlapping contexts, but the description offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions. This leaves the AI agent to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for correct tool selection.

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