click_by_containing_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions return values (result/error) but does not disclose side effects of clicking (e.g., navigation, form submission), behavior when no element is found, or how multiple matches are handled when index is omitted.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose sentence, a compact parameter list, and a return note. It is well-structured and front-loaded without unnecessary verbosity.

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 simplicity of the tool and lack of annotations/output schema, the description covers the core purpose, parameters, and return type. However, it lacks usage context relative to sibling tools and fails to address edge cases (no match, multiple matches without index), leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 provides meaningful explanations for both parameters, including the role of index for multiple matches and its default unspecified state. This compensates for the schema's 0% coverage, though the default behavior when index is omitted remains slightly ambiguous.

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 the tool clicks a web element based on containing text, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool click_by_xpath by specifying the text-based targeting method.

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 implies the tool is used when you want to click an element by its text content, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like click_by_xpath. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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