CDP MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose and context (clicking at coordinates for hard-to-select elements), but lacks details on behavioral traits such as error handling, whether it requires a specific browser state, or if it has side effects like page navigation. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the second explains the use case, and the third provides practical guidance on obtaining coordinates. There is zero waste or 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter context well, but as a mutation tool (clicking implies action), it lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or error responses. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured safety hints, the description should do more to compensate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (x, y, click_count, button) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but it provides context on how to obtain x and y values ('from screenshots or cdp_find_elements rect values'), which is useful but not essential given the high 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 clearly states the specific action ('Click at raw x,y screen coordinates') and resource (screen coordinates), and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining it's for 'elements in shadow DOM or other hard-to-select elements' where other interaction tools might fail. It provides a concrete use case that differentiates it from tools like cdp_interact or cdp_find_elements.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Useful for clicking elements in shadow DOM or other hard-to-select elements') and provides guidance on alternatives by mentioning how to get coordinates ('Get coordinates from screenshots or cdp_find_elements rect values'), which implies that cdp_find_elements might be used first to locate elements before using this tool for clicking.

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