create_extended_selenium_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool generates code but does not execute it, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on potential limitations (e.g., output size, error handling), authentication needs, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and output format. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with key information and appropriately concise for a zero-parameter tool.

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 zero parameters, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and the output format. However, it could improve by addressing when to use it versus siblings or noting any constraints, slightly limiting completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps. It appropriately focuses on the tool's function and output without unnecessary parameter details, earning a high baseline score.

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 tool's purpose: generating extended Robot Framework keywords for specific domains (screenshots, performance monitoring, window management). It specifies the output format (.robot file content as text) and clarifies it does not execute the code. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_advanced_selenium_keywords' or 'create_performance_monitoring_test', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'create_advanced_selenium_keywords' and 'create_performance_monitoring_test' available, there is no indication of when this tool is preferred, what prerequisites might exist, or any exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for selection.

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