input_by_xapth

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 inputs content, optionally clears existing content (clear_first default true), and returns an error if the element does not exist. However, it does not mention waiting behavior, event triggering, or other side effects, which limits transparency.

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 concise, with a clear purpose sentence, a structured Args section, and a Returns note. Every sentence adds value; the '最好先判断元素是否存在' note is a useful behavioral tip. No redundancy or filler.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return type, and an error case. However, the return type is vague ('Any') and there is no detail on the success return or behaviors like scrolling or focusing. It is adequate but not fully complete for a mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It explicitly describes xpath, input_value, and clear_first (including its default value and meaning). This goes beyond the schema, which only provides names and types, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action: '通过xpath给当前标签页中某个元素输入内容' (input content to an element in the current tab via XPath). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like click_by_xpath or send_enter, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It provides a usage hint: '最好先判断元素是否存在' (preferably check if the element exists first), implying the tool may fail if the element is absent. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or under what conditions to avoid it.

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