tab_walk

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

Annotations declare it is non-read-only and non-destructive; the description goes further by disclosing the side effect ('leaves the focus where it ends'), the three termination modes (cycle, trap, max presses), and that unreached controls are reported. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though permission or failure behavior is unstated.

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?

Four relatively tight sentences with no filler and the core purpose front-loaded, but the telegraphic, run-on phrasing makes the middle sentences harder to parse than they need to be. Compact but not clean.

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?

For a six-parameter, no-output-schema tool it covers the essentials: what it does, where focus ends, when it stops, and what it reports. It leaves the window/session/visible parameters to the schema, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description only loosely ties to a few of them (the key chord, 'most presses', unreached controls), adding little syntax or default detail the schema does not already carry — the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence names a concrete action and resource: press a key repeatedly until focus cycles, reporting each landing — i.e., walk the Tab order. It is distinguishable from siblings like press_keys or click, though the clipped phrasing ('say where it went each time') costs some readability.

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 hints at a usage caveat (a text view that captures Tab must be left with ctrl+Tab, shift+Tab, Escape or F6), but never states when to reach for tab_walk versus press_keys, accessible_tree, or click. No explicit alternatives or when-not conditions are given.

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