Click By Selector

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions handling dynamic layouts and reflow, and the constraint that at least one selector must be provided. While annotations already set destructiveHint=true, the description does not contradict it and provides additional positive traits.

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 consists of two concise sentences conveying purpose, advantage, and constraint. Every word serves a function, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and typical selector-based clicking complexity, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the method, reliability advantage, and the need for at least one selector. It does not cover error handling or return values, but these are reasonable omissions given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by listing the selector types (text, resourceId, className, description) and stating the 'index' and 'timeout' implicitly via the schema. It clarifies that at least one selector must be provided, adding meaning to parameter usage. However, it does not detail format or constraints for each parameter.

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 action ('Click'), target ('element by selector'), and lists available selector types (text, resourceId, className, description). It distinguishes from coordinate clicks by highlighting reliability and dynamic layout handling, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool ('More reliable than coordinate clicks') and references an alternative ('coordinate clicks'), likely the sibling 'Click' tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide a direct comparison, leaving room for minor ambiguity.

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