browser_evaluate_click_by_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 behaviors: using DOM .click(), bypassing visibility/actionability and overlay issues, and the same-origin frame constraint. However, it does not mention potential event simulation differences or error behavior, so it is not fully transparent.

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 compact: three sentences, each adding unique value. The main purpose leads, followed by behavioral notes and usage guidance. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (click action), and the schema fully documents all parameters. The description provides usage context, constraints, and clarifies when to choose it over alternatives. However, it does not describe return values or failure modes, but for a click tool this is acceptable. Given the lack of annotations, a complete description would ideally mention error handling, but overall it is adequate.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter information beyond what the schema already provides; the mention of 'text content' aligns with existing parameter descriptions. No additional semantics are provided.

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 states a specific action: 'Click an element by its text content via DOM .click() inside the frame.' It clearly identifies the method and resource, and differentiates from siblings by positioning it as a fallback when 'locator/click_at_rel fail' and by noting the same-origin frame restriction.

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 explicitly says 'Use when locator/click_at_rel fail (e.g. quiz options)', naming alternatives and providing an example scenario. It also notes the limitation 'Same-origin frame only', which serves as an exclusion criterion.

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