click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behaviors: whether it waits for the element to be clickable, what happens on failure (e.g., timeout), if it triggers page navigation, or what the return value is. For a browser interaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence in Russian that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple action tool and front-loads the core functionality.

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 this is a browser interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after the click (page change? new tab?), error conditions, or return values. For a tool that could have significant side effects in a browser automation context, more behavioral context is needed.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (selector for CSS selector, tabIndex as optional tab index). This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('кликнуть' - click) and target ('по элементу в указанной вкладке' - on an element in the specified tab). It distinguishes from siblings like hover, key_press, or type by specifying a click action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential click-related tools that might exist in the broader ecosystem.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing to connect_to_browser first), when not to use it (e.g., for non-interactive elements), or how it relates to siblings like hover or wait_for_element. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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