web_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: after clicking it waits for the page to stabilize and returns new page information, signaling possible navigation side effects. It omits what happens when the selector matches nothing, whether the click throws or times out, and the default post-click wait is left to the schema.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and packs the post-click wait and return behavior into the remainder, with no filler clauses.

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 two-parameter interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and the wait behavior but leaves '新页面信息' undefined and says nothing about failure modes or what constitutes a settled page. Adequate to call correctly in the happy path, incomplete around the edges.

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 100%, so selector and waitMs are already documented in the input schema. The description only echoes the CSS-selector notion and adds no extra meaning, such as selector scoping, visibility requirements, or interaction with the default wait.

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?

States a concrete verb and target: click an element on the current page, identified by a CSS selector. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like web_type or web_read, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation comes from inference rather than the text.

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 phrase '在当前页面' implies a page must already be open, which is a weak prerequisite hint. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus web_type or web_open, and no exclusions or error-precondition guidance, so usage is only implied.

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