chrome_click_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: XPath contains() matching, optional ARIA role filtering, and error handling for 0 or >1 matches. It doesn't mention possible side effects of clicking, but for a click tool the action is explicit enough.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The subsequent sentences add method details, error behavior, and usage preference without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is highly scannable.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, this description covers purpose, method, optional filtering, error handling, and usage guidance. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without ambiguity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that text matching uses XPath contains() (clarifying substring vs exact match) and that the text is visible. It also ties the 'role' parameter to ARIA filtering. This goes beyond the schema's basic definitions.

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 opens with a specific action and target: 'Click an element by its visible text content.' It distinguishes itself from related tools by calling itself a 'semantic alternative to chrome_click' and clearly contrasts with chrome_execute_script. This fully clarifies what the tool does.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Prefer this over chrome_execute_script for clicking buttons/links.' It also implies its use case as a semantic alternative to chrome_click. However, it doesn't enumerate situations where this tool should not be used or when an alternative would be better, so it's not exhaustive.

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