page_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, and it carries it well. It discloses that the click is a real, impactful action that can save/delete/send, and that it does NOT click when multiple matches occur — it instead returns a list. This is exactly the kind of side-effect/cancellation behavior an agent needs to know.

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 compact and front-loaded. '화면의 무언가를 누른다' states the core action first. Each sentence earns its place: method of finding, realness/severity of clicks, and ambiguity/return behavior. There is no filler.

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?

With 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most important behavior: real click, side effects, find-by-selector/text, and ambiguous-match behavior with nth. It could be slightly more explicit about page parameter before invocation, but the schema already documents it. Overall, essential information is present.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter has already has clear descriptions (selector, text, page, nth, 1-based index). The description adds tells how targets can be found ('CSS selector 또는 visible text') and mentions visual text, which maps to the 'text' parameter, but it does not meaningfully explain parameter semantics 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 a verb ('누른다' - clicks) and a specific resource ('화면', the screen). It also explains how it finds targets (CSS selector or visible text) and that it performs real clicks with side effects like save/delete/send. This distinguishes it well from click-like tools such as page_collect or page_look, even without naming siblings.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you want to click something visible on the page. It also gives one internal usage rule: when multiple elements match, it returns a list instead of clicking, and then nth should be provided. However, it never contrasts itself with alternatives like page_collect or page_run, or states when not to use it.

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