Clicar

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and identification methods, but does not describe side effects (e.g., navigation, state changes), waiting behavior, failure handling, or whether the element must be visible/interactable. This is a significant gap for a click operation.

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 a single, short sentence that front-loads the core action and lists identification options efficiently. No wasted words or redundant details.

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 click tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not mention that only one identifier is needed, how tabId interacts, or any preconditions like page load. While the schema covers parameter descriptions, the description lacks operational context that would help an agent use it correctly in a workflow.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it groups ref, selector, and text as identification methods, which the schema already implies. It does not clarify precedence or combination rules (e.g., which takes priority if multiple are provided). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema covers the semantics.

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 ('clicks on an element') and the identification methods (ref, selector, text). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like arc_type (typing) or arc_press (key press), though it doesn't explicitly name them. The purpose is 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. It does not mention that arc_type is for typing, arc_press for key presses, etc., nor does it state any preconditions or typical scenarios. The only implicit hint is the identification methods, which is not enough for an agent to decide confidently.

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