click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'click' implies a user interaction simulation, the description doesn't mention what happens after clicking (e.g., page navigation, form submission, JavaScript execution), error conditions, or any side effects. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple action tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful click, what errors might occur (e.g., element not found), or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of browser automation and the lack of structured data, more behavioral 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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'selector' clearly documented as a CSS selector. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 ('an element on the page'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'hover' or 'select' 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 like 'hover', 'select', or 'get_selected_element'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an element to be visible or interactable) or context for when clicking is appropriate versus other interactions.

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