sleeper_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and supplies almost none of it. It does not say whether the call is idempotent when the box is already checked, whether it waits for the element, or what errors occur on a missing selector.

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?

At two words this is not concise so much as under-specified; there is no structure to speak of and no front-loaded context beyond the bare action. It earns its place only as a label, not as usable documentation.

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?

For a browser-automation mutation tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, 'Check checkbox' omits everything an agent would need: selector format, tab/frame context, and the effect on page state. It is wholly inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 only 33% (only 'profile' is documented, referencing sleeper_sessions), and the description adds nothing about any parameter. The 'selector' and 'tab' parameters are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a verb ('Check') and a resource ('checkbox'), so the basic action is inferable, but it is only two words and provides no detail on scope (which checkbox, in which frame/tab). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling sleeper_uncheck, but does not do so explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus sleeper_click, sleeper_click_text, or sleeper_uncheck. The usage is only weakly implied by the word 'checkbox', with no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives named.

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