session_act

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only lists the actions and does not describe side effects (e.g., navigation, page mutations), failure modes, waiting behavior, or how 'eval' interacts with the page context. This is minimal transparency for a tool that performs potentially impactful browser actions.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the supported actions in a compact, readable list. There is no redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what each action does, expected formats for target beyond schema snippets, or any return values or error behavior. Sibling tools hint at session context, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 50%, with value and target described in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely repeats the action enum. It does not clarify relationships like which parameters apply to which actions or how session_id is used, so it falls short of compensating for the undocumented parameters.

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 with a specific verb ('Perform') and resource ('browser action'), and enumerates the specific actions (goto, click, fill, press, eval). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like session_start, session_observe, session_end, and qa_get_trace, which handle other aspects of the session lifecycle.

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 the tool's usage (when you need to perform a listed browser action) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as session_observe for inspecting state or session_start for creating a session. No exclusions or comparative guidance is provided, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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