click-link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the prerequisite that the page must already be open, but says nothing about side effects, whether navigation replaces the current page, or what is returned/available afterward (no output schema either).

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, no filler text. It is appropriately sized, though the parenthetical aside is slightly awkward rather than wasteful.

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 navigation tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what clicking produces (new content, a new ref_id, navigation behavior). Only the input prerequisite is covered, leaving the result of the action unspecified.

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 the baseline is 3. The description roughly restates the schema's meaning of link_id as a numbered reference link and ref_id as a prior page, adding at most marginal clarity.

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 specific verb ('Open') and resource ('link'), and qualifies it as a numbered reference link within an already-opened page, which helps separate it from sibling open-page/fetch. The phrase 'link link_id' is slightly circular wording, but the intent is still clear.

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?

It implies the link must come from a previously opened page, but never states when an agent should prefer this over open-page, fetch, or web-search, nor any exclusions. The only implicit guidance is the prerequisite ref_id.

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