click

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it explains the click event, the auto-navigation for certain elements, and the return format. It is transparent about side effects and outcomes.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the action and covering all essential information without any fluff.

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 has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains the behavior and return values for typical use cases. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., element must be interactive), but is otherwise complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including an example format for 'ref'. The description reinforces that 'ref' comes from a query, adding a bit extra context beyond the schema.

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 that the tool dispatches a click event on an element specified by a ref, and distinguishes between two outcomes: if the element is an anchor with href and click not prevented, it auto-follows and returns navigation result; otherwise returns a different structure. This is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like navigate, submit, or activate.

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 tells when to use (to click an element) and describes the behavior for links, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools implies usage boundaries.

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