点击

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that dispatching mouse events may trigger navigation, form submission, or script side effects, and notes dependency on the most recent web_snapshot output for ref numbers. This is valuable behavioral context beyond a simple action definition.

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?

Three concise sentences with clear front-loading: purpose, target/capabilities, and a safety warning. Every sentence adds distinct value and no redundancy is present.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, target selection, capabilities, and side effects. A minor gap is that the schema marks no required parameters, and the description does not explicitly state that at least one of ref/selector must be supplied, though '二选一' in the schema implies it.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including mutual exclusivity between ref and selector. The description only adds a minor recommendation that snapshot ref is preferred, so it mostly restates schema information without significant new meaning.

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?

Description clearly states '点击页面元素' (click page elements), enumerates target modes (snapshot ref or selector), and supports mouse buttons, double-click, and modifier keys. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like web_hover, web_press, and web_type.

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 gives guidance on how to specify targets (prefer snapshot ref, otherwise selector) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like web_hover or web_press. When-to-use vs not-use is only implied by the action name, not stated.

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