inspect_field_manually

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'visual element selection' hinting at an interactive UI, but it does not disclose what 'manual inspection' entails, whether a dialog opens, or what the expected output/side effects are. Prerequisites like an initialized browser are also omitted.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word carries meaning and there is no fluff, making it highly scannable.

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 description covers the basic action but lacks workflow context: it does not mention that a browser must be initialized/navigated, nor does it clarify how this manual inspection integrates with sibling tools like generate_selectors or validate_selectors. With no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse for an interactive tool.

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?

The sole parameter fieldName is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already provides complete parameter documentation.

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 action (start manual inspection), the target (a specific field), and the method (visual element selection). It distinguishes itself from auto_detect_field by explicitly indicating a manual process, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 manual inspection is used when automatic detection may not suffice, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like auto_detect_field, nor does it mention any preconditions such as browser initialization. The context is inferable but lacks explicit guidance.

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