interact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it says nothing about side effects, error handling, or element state requirements. It merely restates the action without revealing what happens on failure, waiting behavior, or whether it triggers navigation.

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 short sentence, making it concise. However, it is under-specified; it contains no concrete actions or context, which reduces its value. It is not verbose, but it also does not earn its place as a useful specification.

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 simple tool with three parameters, the description is too minimal to provide adequate context. It lacks information about interaction types, when to use it, and what outcomes to expect. The schema helps, but the description's vagueness leaves the overall picture incomplete.

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 schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, and it does not clarify the distinction between 'type' and 'fill' or when the 'value' is needed. However, the schema already covers the syntax.

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 'Interact with a page element' provides a verb and resource, but 'interact' is vague and does not specify the concrete actions (click, type, fill, select) that the schema reveals. It distinguishes from siblings like navigate or capture_screenshot, but not sharply enough to be immediately clear.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like execute_js or inspect_element, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without decision support.

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