click_button

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself, but it only says 'find' and 'press it.' It does not explain whether the tool waits for the button, how watchdog_timeout affects behavior, whether a failed search throws an error, or what side effects pressing the button may have.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of useful detail.

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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It omits parameter semantics, timing behavior, search behavior, and typical use context, leaving an agent underinformed for reliable 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for any of the four parameters. The 'name' parameter is self-evident from the schema, but 'search_by_title' and especially 'watchdog_timeout' receive no explanation, leaving the agent without necessary context to set them correctly.

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 a specific verb ('find' and 'press') with a resource ('button in the active UI tree'), so an agent can infer the action of clicking a button. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like find_object, focus_object, or decoration_click, which may overlap in purpose.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_object, click_link, or field interactions. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this tool the right choice.

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