comet_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the wait_after behavior but does not disclose potential side effects like navigation, triggered events, or behavior on missing/unmatched selectors. For a click action, this is a meaningful 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 compact and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by a terse Args list. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 low complexity (2 params, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete for successful invocation. It covers both parameters well, though it omits side-effect/error context that would round out the no-annotation situation.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining that selector accepts CSS selectors or 'text=Something' for text matching, and that wait_after is the seconds to wait after clicking. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 states a specific action ('Click') on a specific resource ('an element on the current Comet page'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like comet_type (input) and comet_evaluate (script execution).

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 usage within the current Comet page and gives selector syntax, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like comet_type or comet_wait. There are no exclusions, conditions, or 'use X instead' guidance.

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