riverside_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not state that this is a mutating/interacting operation, whether the click navigates or changes page state, whether element numbers become invalid afterwards, or how failures surface. Only the notion of 'current page' hints at state scoping.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and target are stated before any qualifier. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable: the action and argument are clear, but the agent gets no information about what the click produces or invalidates. Given the simplicity, this is adequate rather than deficient, but not complete.

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% and the schema already documents the sole parameter including the 'from the last read' semantics and minimum of 1. The description adds only the 'current Riverside page' qualifier, which marginally reinforces that the numbering is page-scoped but no more.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Click') and resource ('numbered element on the current Riverside page'), which cleanly separates it from riverside_type and riverside_read by action. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the closest sibling (riverside_type), so the differentiation comes from the verb alone.

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 implied rather than stated: 'numbered element' plus the schema note 'Element number from the last read' hints that riverside_read must run first, but the description never says so or names the alternative action for non-element interaction. No when-not guidance or preconditions are given.

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