click_selector

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

The description says 'CDP 真实坐标点击 (isTrusted:true)' which adds meaningful behavioral context — this uses CDP's real coordinate click mechanism and produces trusted events. However, it doesn't disclose behavior around visibility requirements, element occlusion, or failure modes when the element isn't interactable. With no annotations at all, the burden is on the description, and while it conveys the key behavioral trait (real click vs synthetic), it could go deeper.

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?

Single compact sentence with a terse 'selector("...")' usage hint front-loaded. Extremely concise with the key behavioral detail (isTrusted:true) emphasized. It's efficient but almost telegraphically brief, using minimal words to convey the core function plus trusted-event detail.

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 is a click operation with only 2 params (sel, tab), no output schema, and no annotations. The description names the selector usage pattern and adds the isTrusted detail, but for a 0%-coverage schema it provides no info about the tab parameter semantics, return value, or failure behavior when the selector doesn't match. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the schema properties have no descriptions. The description shows a usage example with the sel parameter and mentions it takes a CSS selector (".btn"), which adds some meaning for sel. However, the second parameter 'tab' is completely undocumented in both schema and description — no mention of what it does, its default, or when it's needed.

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 '真实坐标点击' (real coordinate click), using a specific verb (click) on a specific resource (a CSS selector element) and adds the distinctive isTrusted:true trait. It distinguishes this from siblings like click_at_xy (raw coordinates), click_index (positional indexing), and click_text (text-based), though it doesn't explicitly name the alternatives. Purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 on when to use this vs alternatives like click_at_xy, click_index, or click_text. The sibling tools include several other click variants, and there's no indication which scenario warrants this one — e.g., when real trusted events are needed for anti-bot detection or when coordinate clicks fail. Usage context is entirely implied by the name and description.

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