browser_double_click

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 meaningful behavioral details: the action is a 'true double-click' implemented as 'two trusted press/release pairs with escalating clickCount', which goes beyond a simple 'double-click'. It does not mention side effects or return values, but for a click action the behavior is transparent enough.

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?

Two sentences, both purposeful. The action and its key behavioral trait are front-loaded, and the use-case guidance is concise without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 definition covers what the tool does, why it exists, and the specific condition under which to use it. Given the simple structure (one param, no output schema), this is nearly complete. It could mention alternatives explicitly or what happens after the double-click, but those omissions are minor for this action type.

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?

The single parameter 'selector' is fully described in the schema as 'CSS or text selector' (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It slightly reinforces the targeting through 'on an element', but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'True double-click on an element' and explains it as 'two trusted press/release pairs with escalating clickCount'. It also differentiates itself from sibling click tools by clarifying the use case where two single clicks would trigger inline-rename (e.g., OWA month view).

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 gives an explicit 'Use for...' instruction with concrete examples (calendar events, file lists) and explains why this tool is needed ('two single clicks would trigger inline-rename instead'). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or provide a when-not-to-use condition, but the context is sufficiently clear to guide an agent.

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