jev_act

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior, but the description adds critical context: it takes exactly one action, cannot generate selectors, and passwords are not returned. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining execution constraints. Minor gap: does not detail side effects of each action type, but annotations cover the destructive nature.

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 three sentences, each packed with essential information: the action scope, the ref requirement, the text instruction, the password caveat, and the follow-up with jev_continue. The negative constraints are front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the action parameter with multiple command types, the description covers the common usage pattern and constraints clearly. The schema fully defines the action variants, so the description need not repeat them. A minor gap is not explaining when to use jev_act vs. jev_explore, but the description's focus on 'explicit' action and the follow-up with jev_continue implies the distinction.

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 0% and there are no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description compensates by explaining the 'action' parameter's structure (commands like typing, clicking) and the need for a current ref from jev_inspect. It also mentions the text field for typing. However, it does not enumerate all possible commands, relying on the schema's oneOf, but the description provides enough context for typical use.

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 performs one native browser action in the retained session, listing examples like typing and noting it does not generate selectors or execute JavaScript. This clearly distinguishes it from exploration tools like jev_inspect and jev_continue. The verb 'take' with resource 'native browser action' is specific.

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?

It provides explicit instructions: use a current ref from jev_inspect, provide text for typing, and then continue with jev_continue. It also warns that passwords are not returned in the handoff, guiding the agent on what to expect. This covers when to use and how to sequence with siblings.

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