safari_click

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

The description states the tool clicks an element matching a CSS selector, but the input schema has no parameters (properties: {}). This is a critical contradiction: the expected selector input is not present, making the tool effectively unusable as described. No annotations exist to clarify, so the description fails to disclose the actual behavior.

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 concise sentence. However, it omits critical information about the missing parameter, making it insufficiently informative despite brevity.

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 simple but the description is incomplete: it does not explain how the CSS selector is provided (since no parameter exists), no output schema, no annotations. Essential context is missing, rendering the description inadequate for correct 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 coverage is 100% (no parameters), so baseline is 3, but the description adds negative value by implying a CSS selector parameter that does not exist. This misleads the agent about required inputs.

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 (clicks) and the resource (first matching element in current Safari tab using CSS selector). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like safari_type or safari_fill_form by specifying the click action. However, the implication of a CSS selector parameter is not reflected in the schema.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as chrome_click, safari_evaluate_js, or other Safari interaction tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria.

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