charlotte_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool returns a full page representation after the click, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects like navigation, form submission, or waiting behavior, which are important for a click action.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the action and return value. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description is adequate for a basic click tool, covering the action and return value. However, it lacks any mention of the sibling tool charlotte_click_at, does not explain what 'full page representation' entails, and omits potential side-effect warnings. More context is needed for full completeness.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (element_id, click_type, modifiers) with 100% coverage. The description itself adds no extra parameter context, so it relies on the schema, matching the baseline score.

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 tool clicks an interactive element on the page, which distinguishes it from scrolling, typing, and navigation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from charlotte_click_at, which is a sibling tool likely for coordinate-based clicks, leaving the distinction implied through the word 'element'.

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 phrase 'interactive element' implies element-based clicking, which suggests using this tool over charlotte_click_at, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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