rnw_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names the event mechanism but says nothing about waiting/auto-wait for the element, scrolling into view, timeout behavior, or what happens on failure — all critical for an action tool with side effects.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism, followed immediately by the targeting options. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 4-parameter action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose failure modes, return behavior, and synchronization concerns. It covers targeting well but leaves the operational contract incomplete.

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 all four parameters (x, y, findBy, selector) are already documented in the schema, including the coordinates-only caveat for x/y. The description adds no syntax or usage detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (click), resource (element), and execution context (React Native Web compatible mouse events), then enumerates the four targeting strategies. An agent can distinguish this from rnw_type, rnw_press_key, and rnw_scroll without opening any schema.

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 implies usage through the findBy strategies (use coordinates for exact positions), but never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like rnw_press_key or rnw_evaluate, nor any prerequisites such as the element being present or the session being active.

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