wrave_double_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action 'dispatch double-click event' without explaining side effects, error handling, timing behavior, or whether the operation is destructive. The mention of 'coordinates' without a corresponding parameter adds confusion rather than transparency.

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, front-loading the core action. It is appropriately brief for the limited content, though the missing behavioral detail means it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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 browser automation interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what happens after dispatch (e.g., page changes, return value), how failures (e.g., element not found) are handled, or how the 'coordinates' option would be specified. The mismatch between description and schema further reduces contextual completeness.

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 100%, so 'tab_id' and 'selector' are already well-described. The description adds 'or coordinates' which is not represented in the schema, potentially misleading the agent into thinking a coordinate parameter exists. Thus, it adds incorrect meaning rather than enriching understanding.

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 the action ('dispatch double-click event') and the target ('element selector or coordinates'), which distinguishes it from sibling single-click tools like wrave_click. However, it mentions 'coordinates' as a target option, but the schema only includes a 'selector' parameter, creating a slight inconsistency that reduces clarity.

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 alternatives such as wrave_click or other interaction tools. There is no mention of scenarios where double-clicking is necessary, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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