click_by_uid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the resolution of cached backend_node_id to a remote object, dispatches a native element click, and raises an error for unknown or removed uids. However, it does not describe whether the click is simulated as a real user interaction, if it scrolls into view, requires page focus, or other side effects. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that convey the core functionality, method, and error condition. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main functionality and error case. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., needing a prior accessibility snapshot) and does not clarify what happens on success (e.g., returns void or a result). While not severely incomplete, it leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 compensate. It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name 'uid' by stating it is an 'accessibility uid' from a DOM node. It does not explain the format, how to obtain the uid (e.g., from 'get_accessibility_snapshot' or 'describe_uid'), or any constraints. The description provides only marginal 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 action ('Click') and the resource ('DOM node behind an accessibility uid'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'click' by specifying the unique identifier type (uid) and describes the mechanism (resolving cached backend_node_id, dispatching native click). The error condition is also mentioned, 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'click' or 'human_click'. The description implies it is for accessibility uids from a snapshot, but does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or provide comparisons to sibling tools. The agent must infer usage context.

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