type_in_alert

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the basic action but does not mention waiting behavior, timeout expiration handling, or absence of a prompt. The behavioral coverage is adequate but incomplete.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, though it could optionally expand on parameters without losing brevity.

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 output schema and annotations, the description should explain return behavior and timeout semantics. It covers the main action but omits these details, leaving the agent with incomplete context for a tool with two parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly explains the 'text' parameter, but the 'timeout' parameter receives no explanation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's type and requirement.

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 identifies the action: typing text into a JavaScript prompt dialog and then accepting it. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'accept_alert' (no typing) and 'type_text' (for page elements, not alerts).

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 implicitly indicates use for prompt dialogs that require text input, contrasting with 'dismiss_alert' and 'accept_alert' for other dialogs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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