Suggest Actions for Goal (AI) [Pro]

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates the tool returns coordinates and step-by-step instructions, but does not mention required permissions, potential delays, or whether it can handle complex goals. Without annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate for moderate disclosure.

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 concise with two sentences and examples, avoiding unnecessary detail. The '[Pro]' tag and examples are useful. Slightly lower than 5 because it could be even more succinct without losing clarity.

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 only 2 parameters and no output schema or nested objects, the description covers the core purpose and provides examples. It explains what the tool returns, which is sufficient for a simple tool. However, lacking usage guidance prevents a higher score.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description re-emphasizes 'goal' with examples but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline is 3, which is fitting.

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 it uses AI to analyze the screen and suggest actions for a goal, providing step-by-step instructions. It includes example goals, which adds clarity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'analyze_screen' or 'fill_form' which might handle similar tasks.

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 suggests use cases via examples but does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools. It implies usage for high-level goals but lacks guidance on limitations or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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