element_trigger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without mentioning side effects, requirements (e.g., element visibility), event propagation, or return behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool that triggers events.

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, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words, and structure is appropriate for a tool with such a simple purpose.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not provide enough context about behavior, when to use versus alternatives, or how the 'detail' parameter works. The tool remains ambiguous for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the type description but does not clarify element_id (which has no schema description). With 67% schema coverage, the description should compensate for missing parameter details but fails to do so.

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 '触发元素事件（如 change / blur)' clearly states the tool triggers element events with examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools like element_tap and element_input. It is specific but could be slightly more explicit about the target element (element_id).

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool when needing to fire DOM events like change or blur. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives to prefer, so it only partially addresses this dimension.

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