Browser Click Text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a fallback click by visible text, but doesn't mention behavioral traits like whether it clicks the first match by default (nth=0), what happens if no text is found, whether it waits for the element, or if it can click hidden elements. The 'nth' parameter implies multiple matches are possible, but the description doesn't explain this behavior.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and usage condition. It's efficient with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by adding a second sentence for parameter clarification, but as-is it's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the meaning of 'nth', 'tab', or 'session', nor does it describe what the output contains (though the output schema exists, the description doesn't reference it). For a fallback tool that might be used in complex automation flows, more context is needed about matching behavior and error cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'text' parameter implicitly (the visible text to click). It doesn't explain 'nth' (which match to click), 'tab' (which tab to operate in), or 'session' (which session to use). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for these parameters.

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 ('click') and resource ('visible text'), and explicitly frames it as a fallback method. It distinguishes itself from the sibling browser_click (which presumably uses a ref/selector) by noting it's used when no ref is available. However, it doesn't fully elaborate on what 'ref' means in this context, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 gives a clear usage condition: use this when no ref is available. This implies the alternative (browser_click) should be used when a ref is available. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool, but the context of siblings and the phrase 'fallback' provide adequate guidance. It could be stronger by explicitly naming browser_click as the preferred alternative.

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