chrome_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'real input layer' without explaining side effects, focus requirements, failure behavior, or fallback mechanisms. The description does not contradict annotations (none exist), but it omits critical behavioral details for a complex interaction 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and targeting methods. There is zero wasted wording; 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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It fails to explain when to use each targeting method, how background and domFallback affect behavior, or what the tool returns. An agent would need to infer too much to use it reliably in diverse scenarios.

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 91%, so most parameters are individually described. The description adds value by grouping the three targeting methods (uid, selector, coordinate) and implying their mutual exclusivity, but it does not explain precedence, relationships with other parameters (targetId, background, domFallback), or the purpose of maxElements. This is a baseline 3 given the 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 (click) and the resource (Chrome), and lists three specific targeting methods (snapshot uid, CSS selector, viewport coordinate). It distinguishes from siblings like chrome_hover or chrome_tap by emphasizing 'real input layer', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to prefer this tool over chrome_tap, chrome_hover, or other input tools. It also does not explain when to use uid vs selector vs coordinates, or when to set background or domFallback. Usage context is entirely implied by the description.

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