click_if_visible

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the conditional no-op and timeout wait behavior, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not state what happens when the timeout expires before the element appears, which is a behavior an agent would need to predict.

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?

Two concise sentences, core condition first and timeout detail second. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 simple guarded click tool with an output schema available, the description covers the main contract: conditional no-op and optional wait. Minor gaps remain around timeout expiry behavior and selector syntax, but these don't prevent selection of the tool; they might affect precise 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?

The description gives real semantics to `timeout` (wait up to that long for appearance before clicking) and implies that `selector` identifies the target element. It does not specify selector syntax or matching rules, and since the schema has zero parameter descriptions, the agent must infer selector format from context.

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?

States a specific conditional action on an element: click only if visible, no-op otherwise. This distinguishes it from sibling click tools such as `click`, `click_visible_elements`, and `click_nth_element` by making the visibility guard and no-op behavior explicit.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when a click should succeed silently or do nothing unless the element is visible, and optionally wait for it to appear. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls short of a full routing guideline.

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