da_click_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the underlying mechanism (OCR + classification), click location (center of bbox), return values (coordinates, bbox, recognized text), and error behavior (throws NOT_FOUND). This is comprehensive and goes well beyond minimal transparency.

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 four concise sentences, each contributing unique information: action, method, optional setting, return values, and error. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no redundant or filler content.

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?

Despite lacking annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description covers the core purpose, method, return values, and error conditions. The missing `displayId` parameter and lack of return format details prevent a perfect score, but overall it is complete enough for most use cases.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains `text` (the label) and `fuzzy` (case-insensitive matching with whitespace normalization), but completely omits `displayId`, leaving that parameter ambiguous. Partial compensation—two of three parameters are meaningfully described, but one is left unexplained.

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 a specific action ('Click the on-screen element whose text label matches ‘text’'), method (OCR + UI-element classification), and result (clicks center of bounding box). It distinguishes itself from siblings like da_click (coordinate-based) and da_find_text (find-only) by combining text matching with clicking.

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 intended use is clear: click an element identified by its text label. The description gives a condition for enabling fuzzy matching but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like da_click or da_find_text. It provides clear context but lacks formal exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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