interact_with_page

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only gives a generic statement. It does not disclose whether the tool waits for elements, what delays are applied (though waitAfter exists), return values, side effects, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a UI interaction tool.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the supported actions. Every word earns its place.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It leaves out parameter interaction details, waiting behavior, and expected results, making it inadequate for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 50% (only value and selector have descriptions). The description repeats the action enum values already present in the schema, adding no new information. It does not explain waitAfter or the relationship between value and type actions.

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 the tool's function: performing page interactions (click, hover, scroll to element, type). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_page (navigation) and scroll_and_record (scrolling with recording).

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?

The list of actions implies when to use this tool (for click, hover, scroll, type), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist. The overlap with scroll_and_record is not addressed.

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