perform_secondary_action

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false), but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not disclose what happens when an invalid action is specified, whether the action triggers a response, or if any state changes occur beyond the action invocation.

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 sentence, making it very concise and easy to parse. No fluff or repetition. However, it may be too terse, sacrificing helpful context for brevity. A slightly longer description could improve understanding without harming conciseness.

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 tool with 3 required parameters, no output schema, and siblings like 'click' and 'scroll', the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a secondary accessibility action is, how to discover available actions for an element, or what the return value indicates. Agents lack critical context for correct invocation.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema—'Invoke a secondary accessibility action' essentially restates the 'action' parameter's schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the semantic work.

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 uses a specific verb ('Invoke') and identifies the resource ('secondary accessibility action exposed by an element'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'click' (primary action) and 'scroll' (different gesture). However, the term 'secondary accessibility action' is not explained, which could cause ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with accessibility APIs.

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 this tool versus alternatives like 'click' or 'set_value'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for secondary actions, or conditions under which this tool should be chosen over sibling tools. Agents must infer usage without any decision support.

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