wavexis_shadow_click

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

The description discloses side effects: triggers click handlers and may navigate or mutate the shadow DOM. It also specifies the return format (JSON with 'status' key). This adds significant value beyond annotations, which already indicated destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false.

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 succinct with only three sentences, no unnecessary details, and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence provides distinct value.

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 its complexity, the description covers key aspects: shadow DOM piercing, side effects, return format, and a usage alternative. Combined with annotations (destructive, open world) and output schema (present), it provides a complete understanding for an AI agent.

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 descriptions for both parameters (selectors and session_id) are already present and clear. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Hence baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool clicks an element inside a shadow DOM tree by piercing shadow boundaries. It specifies the action (click), target (shadow DOM element), and method (selector chain), effectively differentiating it from siblings like wavexis_click (regular click) and wavexis_shadow_fill (fill instead of click).

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 advises using wavexis_shadow_eval for custom JS that click/fill cannot express, providing a clear alternative. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance compared to other click tools (e.g., wavexis_click), though the shadow DOM context intrinsically narrows usage.

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