Clicks page controls by name with CDP-injected mouse events and auto-locates each control’s center, so no coordinate guessing is needed; duplicate names return candidates for disambiguation.
按名称点击页面里的控件（走 CDP 注入真实鼠标事件）。 先定位控件矩形中心再点，所以不需要你猜坐标。同名多个时会报错并列出候选。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | 控件文本，支持模糊匹配 | |
| role | No | 限定角色，如 button，用于消歧 | |
| session | No | 会话 id，省略则用当前会话 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose meaningful traits: real mouse events via CDP, center-of-rectangle targeting (no coordinate guessing), and explicit error-on-duplicate behavior. It omits prerequisites such as needing an open CDP target/session (see desktop_cdp_open, desktop_cdp_targets) and says nothing about what is returned.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the mechanism, then the failure mode. No 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 mutation-style UI action with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers mechanics and the ambiguity case but not the CDP session precondition or the result of a successful click. An agent could still mis-invoke it without an attached target.
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 coverage is 100%, so all three params are already documented, including fuzzy matching and role-based disambiguation. The description only reinforces the duplicate-name/role interplay, so baseline 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('按名称点击页面里的控件') and adds the mechanism ('走 CDP 注入真实鼠标事件'), which separates it from plain desktop_click. It doesn't explicitly name which sibling to prefer among desktop_click / desktop_click_element / desktop_cdp_type, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
Gives one useful usage condition: ambiguous names cause an error with candidates listed, implying the role param should be used to disambiguate. It never says when to choose this over desktop_click or desktop_click_element, leaving the biggest routing decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.