click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states the basic action (clicking) but doesn't describe what happens on failure (e.g., if selector doesn't exist), whether it waits for element visibility, error conditions, or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for an interactive tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space, making it an excellent example of conciseness.

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 browser automation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after clicking (e.g., page navigation, JavaScript execution), error handling, or return values. Given the interactive nature and potential complexity, more context is needed.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('tabId' and 'selector') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('클릭합니다' - clicks) and target ('지정된 셀렉터의 요소' - element of specified selector), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wait_for_selector' or 'type' that also interact with page elements, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an open tab), comparison to similar sibling tools like 'type' or 'wait_for_selector', or scenarios where this tool is appropriate versus inappropriate.

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