drag

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

With no annotations, the description reveals some behavior: it returns a dict with offsets and duration, or an error string when the element is not found. It also notes no explicit exception is thrown. However, it does not describe drag mechanics, waiting behavior, or how this differs from a simple move, leaving gaps.

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 well-organized with clear Args, Returns, and Raises sections. It is concise, with no redundant text. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes parameters and behavior easy to scan.

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 4-parameter drag tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all key aspects: input parameters, units, defaults, and error handling. It lacks some behavioral context like whether the element must be visible or how the drag is performed, but is largely complete for practical use.

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 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: xpath (element path), offset_x/offset_y (pixel offsets), and duration (milliseconds, default 1000). It also explains the return format, adding semantic meaning well beyond the raw schema.

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: '将元素拖动到指定偏移位置' (drag element to specified offset position). It specifies the verb (drag), resource (element), and scope (offset). It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'move_to', but the offset parameters and drag terminology make it clear enough.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for dragging elements, but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like 'move_to'. There is no context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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