page_point

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavior. It clearly discloses the visible effect: show the user the element, draw a highlight, and attach a message. It is slightly less transparent about whether the highlight persists or whether any page state is changed, but the core behavior is well described.

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 short and well-structured: it states the action, the visible result, and a clear use case. A tiny redundancy between the parenthetical example and the following explanation keeps it from being fully compact.

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 no output schema and only four simple parameters, the description plus the schema is very sufficient for callers. The main missing point is that page_point does not say whether it has any lasting or permanent side effects, such as leaving an annotation after the call.

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 already describes most parameters (nth, say, page), so the description adds little beyond a broad confidence. It reinforces the purpose of selector and say, but it does not clarify what selector is or give details about return values. With schema coverage at 75%, the description does not need to do all the heavy lifting but also does not add significant extra meaning.

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 uses a specific verb '짚어 보인다' (point out) and explains the mechanism: draws a highlight-like border and attaches a word. This clearly distinguishes page_point from siblings such as page_click or page_fill, making its purpose immediately recognizable.

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 explicitly says to use this when discussing what to fix, instead of explaining verbally. This gives a clear usage context, though it does not name sibling tools or explicitly say when not to use other page_* tools.

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