firefox_paste

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not clarify that the 'text' parameter is used directly rather than reading from the clipboard, nor does it mention how the 'observe' parameter affects output. The side effects (e.g., overwriting existing content, focus changes) are not discussed, making the tool behavior opaque.

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 covers the core action and two targeting modes. However, it is too brief to convey important details, balancing conciseness with a slight lack of completeness.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is insufficient. It omits return behavior (e.g., whether a snapshot is returned), the role of the 'frameRef' parameter, and the difference between 'focused' and 'chosen' element modes. The context of being a Firefox automation tool is not leveraged.

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?

The schema has 60% coverage (3 of 5 parameters described), but the description adds no parameter-specific information. It hints at 'chosen element' for the 'selector' parameter but does not explain the 'text' or 'observe' parameters. The description fails to compensate for the schema's gaps, leaving parameter semantics unclear.

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 action (paste) and the target (focused element or chosen element), distinguishing it from sibling tools like firefox_type or firefox_keypress. However, it could be more specific about the nature of the paste operation (e.g., simulating Ctrl+V from clipboard) vs writing the provided text directly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use paste versus other input tools like type or keypress. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., focus requirement), alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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