safari_click_and_read

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

The description discloses key behavioral aspects: it returns the updated page and handles both client-side (React Router) and full page navigations. It does not mention waiting or error conditions, but the core behavior is transparent. Since there are no annotations to supplement, this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

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, highly concise, and directly to the point. Every word adds value: it states the action, the result, the efficiency gain, and the navigation coverage. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 gives enough context for a typical use case: clicking an element and getting the resulting page. It notes that it handles both React Router and full page loads, which is important for correctness. It does not explain failure modes or return format, but the tool's purpose is sufficiently scoped for an agent to call it appropriately.

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 description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters beyond what is already provided in the schema (e.g., x, y, text, selector). It does not clarify how parameters interact or which are mutually exclusive, but the schema itself is complete with per-parameter descriptions. Thus, the description provides no additional semantic value.

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 purpose: clicking an element and returning the updated page. It also highlights the efficiency benefit (saving a round-trip) and mentions specific navigation scenarios it handles, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly guides usage by comparing to a separate click+read_page and stating the advantage, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool. It also mentions handling React Router navigation and full page loads, which is a relevant criterion for selection. However, it does not explicitly state alternative tools for other scenarios (e.g., when only clicking is needed).

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