ghost_tab_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal meaningful traits: ~1-2ms execution, no cursor movement, trusted synthetic event, and background-tab capability. It does not disclose timeout behavior, side effects such as triggering navigation, or failure behavior when the selector is absent or non-clickable, leaving a notable transparency gap.

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 a single compact sentence with the action front-loaded. The performance and capability details ('~1-2ms; no cursor movement; works in a tab that is not in front') are packaged efficiently with no filler. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 tab-click action, the description covers the core invocation facts: target tab, CSS selector, synthetic trusted event, and background-tab support. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the missing timeout semantics, error behavior, and lack of alternative routing leave clear gaps. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to selector ('CSS selector') and partly to tab ('inside the tab's renderer'), but leaves browser and timeout_ms semantically unexplained. While timeout_ms is somewhat self-explanatory by name, its exact behavior is not described, so the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Click an element by CSS selector' inside the tab's renderer. It adds distinguishing mechanism details ('trusted synthetic mouse event', 'no cursor movement', 'works in a tab that is not in front') that separate it from generic click or act tools. This is clear and sibling-differentiating.

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 provides useful contextual signals, such as the click being synthetic, fast, and working in background tabs, which implies when it should be used. However, it never names alternatives or states exclusions, so an agent must infer when to prefer ghost_tab_click over ghost_act, ghost_tab_eval, or ghost_tab_press. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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