upload_file

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core mechanism—sending an absolute path to the file input—but omits details such as waiting behavior, hidden-input handling, event side effects, and failure outcomes.

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 definition is a single, compact sentence with no filler. The verb and target are front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately 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?

For a four-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, the description is mostly sufficient, but with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves behavioral expectations like wait time, return value, and error conditions undisclosed. The low complexity of the tool keeps this gap from being severe.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond reaffirming that the path is absolute and the target is a file input, which the schema already conveys.

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 action ('Upload a file') and a specific target ('<input type='file'> element'), which clearly distinguishes it from text-entry siblings like type_text, send_keys, and fill_form. It is immediately obvious what resource this tool operates on.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever a file needs to be uploaded through a file input element. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the '<input type='file'>' criterion is a strong and sufficient usage cue.

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