click_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate that the click uses CDP with isTrusted:true and real coordinates — useful behavioral information. However, it doesn't disclose what 'index' refers to (an element index? a tab index?), whether it requires a real (non-headless) tab given the ensure_real_tab sibling, or what happens on failure. The disclosed CDP/isTrusted behavior is notable value but incomplete.

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 a single short line, which is concise. However, the man-page-style suffix '(3)' is unhelpful noise that could confuse an agent. It's efficient but the format is odd and arguably wastes the limited text budget on a non-informative notation rather than useful content.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool (clicking an element by index across possibly multiple tabs) with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage. The description does not explain the index semantics, tab handling, real-tab requirements, or return behavior. For a tool that performs a real user-visible action, the description is far too thin to guide correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter guidance whatsoever. The description does not explain what 'index' means in this context, nor what the optional 'tab' parameter does. With 0% coverage and zero description compensation, the agent cannot determine parameter semantics — this is a critical gap. The description carries no parameter information at all.

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 states "CDP 真实坐标点击 (isTrusted:true)" — it identifies the intent (real-coordinate click via CDP with isTrusted true). However, the format "click_index(3)" mixes man-page notation confusingly, and it's entirely in Chinese which may not help non-Chinese-speaking agents. It distinguishes from siblings like click_at_xy and click_selector only implicitly via the 'index' parameter, but this isn't stated. Purpose is moderately clear but under-specified.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use click_index versus sibling tools like click_selector, click_at_xy, click_text, or hover_index. The description doesn't explain the relationship between index-based clicking and selector/text/coordinate-based alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (like an active real tab, given the sibling ensure_real_tab exists). Usage context must be inferred entirely.

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