webview_interact

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which aligns with the description of performing interactive gestures. The description adds context beyond annotations, such as requiring an active driver session and explaining selector strategies, but could explicitly mention potential side effects (e.g., UI changes). No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences long, each packed with essential information. The first sentence states purpose and actions, the second adds constraints and alternatives. No redundant text; 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 the 14 parameters, the description covers key behavioral aspects: requires active session, supported actions, selector strategies, and alternative for browser. It lacks explicit mention of error handling, timeout, or return values, but the absence of an output schema reduces the burden. Slight gap in potential failure modes.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by summarizing parameter behavior (e.g., scroll direction: 'positive = right/down') and providing defaults for duration. This slightly exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: interacting with a Tauri app webview through actions like click, scroll, and swipe. It lists supported actions, selector strategies, and distinguishes from browser interaction tools, providing clear differentiation from siblings like webview_keyboard and webview_dom_snapshot.

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 includes explicit usage conditions: 'Requires active driver_session' and 'For browser interaction, use Chrome DevTools MCP instead.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and when to avoid it, offering clear guidance.

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