neuron_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not disclose what happens on multiple or zero matches, whether it waits for the element, whether it scrolls into view, or what it returns after the click. For a mutating action, this is a notable gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: the verb, the target element, and the two matching strategies. It is appropriately sized for a simple click 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?

For a 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers what the tool does and how to invoke it, which is sufficient for basic selection. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks return-value and edge-case behavior, leaving the agent to guess what happens after the click.

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 the schema already documents tabId, texts, and selectors. The description's phrase 'by CSS selector or visible text' mirrors the schema field descriptions and adds no additional meaning about parameter precedence, formatting, or interaction.

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 uses a specific verb 'click' with a clear resource ('an element') and defines the two addressing modes: CSS selector or visible text. This distinguishes it from DOM-querying siblings like neuron_query_dom and neuron_find_elements, which inspect rather than act, and from neuron_type, which inputs text.

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 description implies when to use the tool—whenever a click on an element is needed—but gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to prefer in ambiguous cases. Sibling tools such as neuron_vision_act may also perform clicking, but no contrast is provided.

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