clikta_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It adds that the action is 'logged as a step' and operates in the 'active recording's browser', which is useful. However, it omits potential side effects or failure modes (e.g., what happens if no recording is active or element not found).

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It conveys the core action, context, and side effect without any filler.

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 tool's simplicity and the schema covering all parameters, the description is mostly complete. It sets the context (active recording) and the side effect (logging). The only missing aspect is what the tool returns or prerequisites beyond an active recording, but this is a minor gap for an action tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it merely says 'fill a text field' without elaborating on locator parameters or the value input.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fill') and resource ('text field in the active recording's browser') while also noting it logs the action as a step. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like click or navigate.

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 description implies usage when a text field needs to be filled, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives (e.g., clikta_click) or mention when not to use it. The 'active recording' context is clear but no exclusions are stated.

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