click_text

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

The description mentions 'CDP 真实坐标点击 (isTrusted:true)', which adds useful behavioral context about how the click is executed (real CDP coordinates, trusted events). However, no annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't clarify whether this is destructive, requires a loaded page, or what happens if the text isn't found.

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 extremely compact — a single line with an example call and a brief technical qualifier. It's concise without waste, though the lack of elaboration means some needed context is missing.

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 click tool with 2 params (text required, tab optional) and no annotations or output schema, the description is underspecified. Sibling tools like click_selector, click_at_xy, and click_index suggest multiple click mechanisms exist, and this description doesn't explain when to prefer click_text over those alternatives. No info on error behavior when text isn't found or how it interacts with page loading states.

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%, so the description must compensate. It documents the 'text' parameter via the example ('置'), but gives no guidance on the 'tab' parameter at all. The example helps clarify text semantics but not tab. This only partially compensates for zero schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb (click) and a resource (text), and distinguishes it as a CDP real-coordinate click with isTrusted:true. However, 'click_text' is fairly self-explanatory, and the description doesn't differentiate it from sibling click_selector, click_at_xy, or click_index beyond the CDP/trusted technical detail.

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 on when to use this tool versus click_selector, click_at_xy, click_index, or hover. The CDP/trusted qualifier hints at a specific use case, but it's not explicit. There's no mention of when it might fail or when an alternative is more appropriate.

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