chrome_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the SPA-related synthetic event handling via ensureInteractive, which is valuable, but it omits what happens on missing selectors, waits, or navigation side effects. This is acceptable for a simple click tool but leaves some ambiguity.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes the key optional behavior in a clear conditional. Every word earns its place.

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 with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema cover the essential behavior. It could mention error handling or return values, but the low complexity does not demand it.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (selector and ensureInteractive). The description adds a brief mention of React SPAs but does not meaningfully expand beyond the schema's own explanation of the hover-focus-wait-click sequence.

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 ('Click') and the targeting method ('CSS selector'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like chrome_click_text that use text-based targeting. The verb+resource structure is specific and 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?

It gives explicit guidance to use ensureInteractive for React SPAs, which is a context-specific usage instruction. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over chrome_click_text or other sibling click tools, so a small gap remains.

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