jevbrow_click

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

Annotations already declare the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds only 'then inspect the new state,' a mild postcondition. It does not explain side effects, the role of the fingerprint in preventing stale actions, or failure behavior, so it does not meaningfully go beyond the annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the action, the target, and the expected follow-up. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It omits the provenance and semantics of the fingerprint, which is a nontrivial parameter, and leaves the agent to infer that action_id/fingerprint come from a prior observe call. A sentence clarifying that would close the gap.

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 supply parameter meaning. It maps fingerprint to the observed action and implies action_id identifies the action, but it never explains where these values come from, why the fingerprint is required, or any format constraints. This is insufficient compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Click one observed action.' The phrase 'with its fingerprint' and the contrast with sibling tools (observe, type_text, select, scroll) make clear this tool activates an already-observed action rather than opening, typing, or selecting. It is unambiguous what the tool is for.

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 implies the tool should be used after observation ('one observed action') and for click-style interactions, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over siblings such as select or type_text, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage context is implied by the verb rather than spelled out.

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