touch-browser

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. It mentions clicking an 'interactive target' but fails to explain what constitutes such a target, potential side effects (e.g., page navigation, state changes), error conditions, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely performs mutations.

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 front-loads the core action. There's no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity (interactive clicking likely involves mutations), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, return values, and error handling, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 must compensate but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what sessionId, tabId, targetRef, or ackRisks mean, their formats, or how they interact. For a tool with 4 parameters (2 required), this is inadequate.

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 target ('interactive target'), specifying it operates within an existing daemon session/tab. It distinguishes from tools like tb_open or tb_session_create by focusing on interaction rather than creation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar interactive tools like tb_submit or tb_type.

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 implies usage within an existing session/tab but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tb_submit or tb_type. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where clicking is preferred over other interaction methods.

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