fill

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses focusing, clearing, typing, and optional submit. However, it does not explain what '@eN' means (likely a placeholder), whether the tool waits for elements, or error handling. The behavior is partially described but lacks important details.

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 concise sentence, but its shorthand (e.g., '@eN') reduces clarity. It is appropriately short but at the expense of understandability. The information is front-loaded with 'Enfoca' (focuses) as the first word.

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 complexity of browser automation and the lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover return values (though output schema exists), error states, or prerequisites like element visibility. For a tool with 3 parameters and no enums, the description is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly without additional context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'ref' implicitly via '@eN' and 'text' via 'escribe text', and explicitly mentions 'submit=True'. However, it does not define 'ref' or 'text' clearly, nor their expected formats. Adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 that the tool focuses on an element (by ref), clears it, and writes text, with an option to submit (Enter). The verb 'fill' aligns with this action. It differentiates from siblings like 'set_value' or 'click' by implying a sequence of actions, but does not explicitly distinguish from siblings.

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 is provided on when to use 'fill' versus alternatives like 'set_value' or 'js_eval'. There are no exclusions or context for appropriate use. The description implies use for filling form fields, but this is not explicit.

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