charlotte_click_at

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the click dispatches 'real CDP-level mouse events' and returns a 'full page representation' after the click. While it doesn't cover every edge case (e.g., out-of-viewport coordinates, waiting for navigation), it provides the core behavioral traits relevant to a coordinate click tool.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: action statement, usage context, and return behavior. No filler or redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool is simple (4 params, no output schema), and the description covers the return value ('full page representation') and the type of events dispatched. It doesn't mention prerequisites like page load state, but such details are likely unnecessary for a click tool with clear semantics. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's 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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters with clear descriptions, including enum values for modifiers and click_type (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond labeling x/y as 'page coordinates', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Click at specific page coordinates' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling element-based click tool by noting it's for when elements are not in the accessibility tree (custom widgets, canvas, non-semantic interactive divs).

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Use when target elements are not in the accessibility tree...' This implies not to use it when elements are accessible, effectively differentiating it from alternatives like charlotte_click. The mention of CDP-level events preempts expectations about event orchestration.

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