click

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a subtle behavior: for text/index locators, only the first match is returned, and supplying nth causes a permanent error. It also explains the nth prefix behavior. However, it does not mention other potential behaviors like scrolling, waiting, or the effect of the optional tab parameter.

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 moderately long but information-dense: examples come first, followed by a clear statement of unified usage and an edge-case warning. Every sentence contributes, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core locator syntax, the unified-entry rationale, and an important error behavior, which is fairly complete. But it omits the tab parameter and does not describe behavior like element-not-found or success/failure responses, leaving some uncertainty.

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 adds substantial meaning to the loc parameter with a variety of examples and the nth prefix syntax, going far beyond the bare schema. However, the 'tab' parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a gap for an optional but potentially relevant input.

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 defines the tool as a unified locator-based click ('统一定位点击') and provides concrete syntax examples (css:, text:, index:, xpath:, placeholder:). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like click_selector, click_text, and click_index by stating '不用在 click_selector / click_text / click_index 之间挑' (no need to choose among them).

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 positions this as the single entry point for all locator-based clicks, telling the agent not to choose among click_selector, click_text, or click_index. It also gives exclusions: the nth prefix only works with css/xpath/placeholder, and using it with text/index will cause a permanent error rather than an unintended click.

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