type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action (text input) but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it waits for the element, handles errors if selector doesn't exist, requires the element to be visible/enabled, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects (success/failure conditions, side effects), provide usage context, or explain what happens after text input. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is lacking.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (tabId, selector, text). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the action ('입력합니다' - inputs/enters) and the target ('지정된 셀렉터의 입력 필드' - specified selector's input field). It distinguishes from siblings like 'click' or 'navigate' by focusing specifically on text input. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'evaluate' could potentially also input text).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open tab with the selector present), when not to use it (e.g., for non-input elements), or suggest sibling tools for related actions like 'click' for buttons or 'wait_for_selector' for element availability.

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