Click an element

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does useful work: it discloses the precondition (a story must be open) and the key mechanic that resulting custom events are captured naturally rather than synthesized. It omits failure behavior (e.g. non-matching selector) and any return/wait semantics, so it is not fully complete but is well above baseline.

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 action and its selector mechanism are front-loaded in the first clause, and the get_events follow-up is a useful trailing pointer. The 'same loop a human runs by hand' illustration is somewhat wordy but does earn its place by conveying intent.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the precondition (open story), the mechanism (real event capture) and the follow-up (get_events). Only error/edge behavior is left undocumented, which is minor at this complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already carries its own examples ('demo-toggle', '.menu-trigger'), so the description only echoes 'CSS selector (e.g. a menu trigger)'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the documenting.

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?

It states a specific verb (click) and resource (a real element in the open story via a CSS selector), so the action is unambiguous. It implicitly contrasts with dispatch_event through 'real element ... captured naturally', but never names that sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 gives clear context for use: replicate the human 'open the menu, see it respond' loop and verify with get_events afterward. It stops short of stating when to prefer dispatch_event or any exclusion, so it lands at clear-context-without-alternatives rather than a full routing rule.

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