page_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the CDP-based input path, automatic xterm textarea retargeting, optional clear/submit behavior, and a no-op guarantee for missing, ambiguous, or unusable targets. This is substantial and goes well beyond the input schema, though it does not cover timeout behavior or possible error responses.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action and target are front-loaded, followed by a special-case note, optional behaviors, and the no-op outcome. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool has six parameters and an output schema, and the description covers target selection, tab scoping, optional clear/submit, xterm handling, and failure behavior. It is slightly incomplete only in explaining timeout semantics and how selector objects are interpreted, but it is otherwise sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by mapping 'focused element' and 'CSS/structured-locator field' to the selector parameter, 'specific tab' to session_id, and 'clear and submit a key' to clear and submit_key. Only timeout is left under-described, but the core parameters are contextualized.

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 specifies a concrete action ('Insert text'), a precise target ('focused element or a CSS/structured-locator field in a specific tab'), and a distinguishing mechanism ('background CDP input'). This separates it from siblings like type_text or page_press without needing to name them.

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 implies contexts such as xterm containers and structured-locator targets, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool over type_text or page_press. It provides useful situational details but leaves the comparison and exclusion rules to inference.

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