auto_detect_field

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'AI-like heuristics' but fails to explain side effects, return values, or edge cases. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's runtime 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It effectively communicates the core purpose in minimal words, which is appropriate for a tool with a simple role.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), but the description still omits critical context such as what the tool returns, when it is appropriate to use, and how it differs from sibling tools. An agent lacks enough information to confidently select and call it.

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% with descriptions for both fieldName and strategies, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the nuance of 'AI-like heuristics' but does not explain the meaning of strategy values like 'smart', 'text', or 'structure', leaving gaps beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb 'detect' with resource 'elements for a field' and method 'AI-like heuristics', making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like inspect_field_manually, so it misses 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_field_manually or generate_selectors. The description only states what it does without any context or exclusions.

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