wavexis_click

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds specific side effects (triggers click, may submit forms, toggle controls, navigate page) and details the return format, providing useful context beyond the structured annotations.

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 extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, alternatives, side effects, and return format. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers the core behavior, side effects, and return structure. It distinguishes itself among many siblings. Minor gap: no parameter constraints (e.g., selector must exist) beyond side effects.

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?

The description mentions 'CSS selector' but does not elaborate on other parameters like url, button, backend, or click_count. The schema itself provides descriptions for all parameters, so the description adds marginal value. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given schema coverage.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Click an element matching a CSS selector.' It immediately distinguishes from siblings by naming alternative tools for double-click, right-click, and text-based clicking, making the 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 explicitly states when to use alternative tools (wavexis_double_click, wavexis_right_click, wavexis_nl_click), providing clear context for selection. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' but the alternatives cover the main exclusions.

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