interact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns markdown after all actions, which is behavioral. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., if a selector fails), timeouts, or any side effects. Still, the core behavior is clear.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and technology, second lists actions and output. Front-loaded with key information, no fluff. Every sentence 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?

Given no output schema, the description provides the return format (markdown). The tool has three parameters with full schema descriptions, and siblings are distinct. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and how to use 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds meaning by stating that actions are executed in sequence and that the final result is markdown, which the schema lacks (no output schema). However, it does not go beyond listing the same action types already in the enum.

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's purpose: interacting with web page elements via a Chromium headless browser, executing actions like click, fill, select, scroll, and wait in sequence, and returning the final page content as markdown. This distinguishes it from siblings like fetch_page (raw fetch) or extract_data (likely extraction), making it specific.

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 usage for interactive sequences but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when no interaction is needed, use fetch_page). No when-not-to-use or alternative tool names are provided.

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