CloakMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: auto-retries once if the element moved and returns an updated snapshot. However, it doesn't cover other important aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the element doesn't exist), performance (e.g., timeouts), or side effects (e.g., page navigation after clicking).

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by behavioral details and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is clear with a brief intro and an 'Args:' section.

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 tool's moderate complexity (interactive element clicking), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and parameters, but lacks context on integration with sibling tools (e.g., dependency on cloak_snapshot) and error scenarios, which would enhance completeness.

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. It adds meaningful semantics: 'page_id: Target page ID' and 'ref: Ref ID from snapshot (e.g., '@e5' or 'e5')', including examples. This clarifies what the parameters represent beyond their schema titles ('Page Id', 'Ref'), though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., page_id structure).

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 tool's purpose: 'Click an element by its [@eN] ref ID from cloak_snapshot.' It specifies the verb (click), resource (element), and source (snapshot). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cloak_hover or cloak_select, which likely perform similar interactions on elements.

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 by referencing 'cloak_snapshot' as the source for ref IDs, suggesting this tool should be used after taking a snapshot. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cloak_hover for hovering, cloak_select for selecting), nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a valid page_id from cloak_list_pages or cloak_launch.

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