click_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose key semantics: click the first node, match by substring of visible text. But it does not explain timeout behavior, what happens if no node matches, case sensitivity, or whether it waits for the text to appear—leaving the timeout parameter ambiguous.

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?

This is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, target, and matching rule without filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 itself is low-complexity, and the core behavior is defined, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves behavioral gaps around timeout and failure handling. It is adequate for basic understanding but not complete for reliable automated invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the parameters. It clarifies 'text' implicitly as the substring to look for in visible text, but 'timeout' is entirely unexplained: what it measures, how it behaves, and what happens on timeout are all absent.

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), the target type (first node), and the matching criterion (visible text contains the given text). This distinguishes it from the generic 'click' sibling tool by specifying text-based targeting rather than selector-based targeting.

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 use case is implied: click a node by its visible text rather than by a structural selector. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over the sibling 'click' tool or mention any exclusions/when-not-to-use scenarios.

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