Selects an app-owned action ID from candidates using goal and observation, without executing actions, to support decision-making in browser workflows.
Choose an app-owned action ID. No action is executed by this tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | Yes | ||
| model | No | jev-latest | |
| prefer | No | ||
| history | No | ||
| provider | No | live | |
| timeout_s | No | ||
| candidates | Yes | ||
| observation | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries the full burden. It only discloses that no action is executed, but omits error behavior, latency/cost, side effects, authentication, and return semantics. The one disclosed behavior is useful but insufficient.
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 terse sentences with zero filler, front-loading the verb and adding the key non-execution caveat. Efficient, though brevity comes at the cost of needed detail.
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?
With 8 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and a two-sentence description, an agent lacks essential context for input construction and tool behavior. The output schema does not compensate for missing parameter semantics.
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 0%, and none of the 8 parameters (including required goal, observation, candidates) are explained in the description. The tool cannot be correctly invoked without guessing parameter formats.
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?
States a specific verb ('Choose') and resource ('app-owned action ID'), with an explicit non-execution caveat that distinguishes it from execution siblings. Core purpose is clear even though alternatives are not named.
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 on when to use this tool versus jev_step or jev_browser_run. No mention of prerequisites, selection criteria, or when to prefer this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.