joist_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it: it never says whether a click navigates, submits, mutates server state, or is irreversible, nor whether it waits for the resulting page load or what happens if the element number is stale. For an interaction tool with side effects this is a substantial omission.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero redundant wording; the verb and target come first. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for an interaction tool.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and one required parameter, yet the description omits the prerequisite read step, post-click effects, and failure modes for an invalid or stale element number. An agent could call it, but not confidently predict or interpret the result.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Element number from the last read"), so the schema already does the work. The word "numbered" in the description reinforces that the target is an index rather than a selector, but adds no format, range, or error guidance beyond the schema's minimum of 1.

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?

"Click a numbered element on the current Joist page" gives a specific verb (click) and a specific target (a numbered element on the active page), which clearly separates it from joist_read, joist_type, and joist_open. It stops short of naming those siblings or stating what kind of elements count as clickable, so it is clear but not maximally distinguishing.

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?

Usage is only implied: "current Joist page" and the schema note "Element number from the last read" together suggest a read must precede a click and that a page must already be open, but the description never states these prerequisites or when to prefer joist_type over joist_click. There are no explicit exclusions.

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