click_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does disclose the important non-obvious trait: ambiguous matches cause an explicit failure with a numbered candidate list rather than a silent first click. It also explains the narrowing options. It doesn't cover exact-match behavior or post-click waiting, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the primary action, then adds the highest-value behavioral caveat and disambiguation instructions. Every clause earns its place; no repetition of schema fields.

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 click-by-text tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operation, failure mode, and how to resolve ambiguity. The remaining gaps are minor: exact matching semantics and the success return value, neither of which is fatal to correct invocation.

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 75%, and the description adds useful practical examples for `within` and clarifies index semantics (0-based, -1 requires unique match). However, the `exact` parameter has no schema description and is never explained in the tool description, leaving a notable semantic gap about whether matching is exact or substring-based.

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 opening sentence "Click element by visible text" names the exact verb, resource, and locator strategy, setting it apart from siblings like click_role, click, and find_by_text. The rest of the description clarifies scope without muddying the core purpose.

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 context for using click_text (clicking by visible text) is implied by the first sentence, and the ambiguity-failure note gives practical guidance on narrowing or choosing among matches. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over click, click_role, or find_by_text, nor does it state when not to use it.

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