scout_click

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does a good job explaining the double-submit probe mechanism and that the result states whether duplicates fired. However, it fails to disclose general click side effects (navigation, form submission, waiting behavior, failure modes when ref is invalid) for a mutating action, leaving notable gaps.

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 content is valuable but poorly structured — it is a single long run-on sentence cramming purpose, return value, and a detailed behavioral explanation together. It would benefit from breaking the probe explanation into separate sentences and front-loading the core click purpose. Every idea earns its place, but the formatting hurts readability.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should fully explain return values and post-click behavior. It vaguely says 'Returns the outcome plus any oracle violations triggered' but doesn't specify what the outcome looks like, whether it waits for page loads, or what happens after navigation. The clicks probe guidance is thorough, but general click behavior is under-specified.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by explaining WHY the clicks probe matters ('fires the same state-changing request twice means the control is not guarded against double submission') and giving concrete usage guidance. This elaboration justifies a 4.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Click an element by its ref from the latest scout_snapshot.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like scout_hover and scout_type by anchoring to snapshot element refs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from scout_press, leaving slight ambiguity about boundary cases, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance for the clicks probe: 'use it on every important submit/create button once.' It also explains the double-submit detection rationale. But it offers no when-not guidance or explicit alternatives among the 25 siblings for a basic click, so it misses the top score.

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