click_ref

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that the backendNodeId is stable across rounds, which is useful. However, it omits important operational details such as prerequisites (e.g., element must exist), failure behavior, or whether it scrolls into view. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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, concise sentence that front-loads an example usage. Every word contributes to the meaning without redundancy.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, but the description covers the core mechanism and stability benefit. However, it lacks context on how to obtain the backendNodeId or when to prefer this over sibling tools, and with no annotations there is no safety or side-effect disclosure. The description is adequate for a simple click action but not fully complete.

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 only specifies 'ref' as an integer, but the description adds meaningful semantics by indicating that 'ref' is a backendNodeId. This clarifies the parameter's purpose and expected type usage. It does not explain where to obtain the ref, but it goes beyond the raw 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 the function: 'click using backendNodeId' (用 backendNodeId 点击). It specifies the resource (backendNodeId) and the verb (click), and the added note about cross-round stability distinguishes it from other click variants like click_selector or click_text.

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 usage when a stable backendNodeId handle is available ('cross-round stable handle'), but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use other tools. There is no direct when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, only the mechanism.

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