browser_right_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the 'covered' failure contract (ok:false, covered_by), that nothing is sent when coverage is detected up front, that remaining presses/clicks are aborted if it arrives later, and the maybe_landed:true signal. This is exactly the failure-mode detail an agent needs for a click primitive.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the remainder is a single dense, run-on sentence with em-dash parentheticals that is harder to parse than it needs to be. It is information-dense but not well structured.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers success behavior, the coverage/occlusion failure path with error codes, the abort semantics, and the maybe_landed ambiguity. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret results.

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% for the single 'selector' parameter (CSS or text selector), so the schema already documents it. The description says only 'an element' and adds no selector syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Right-click an element') plus the mechanism (trusted CDP mouse events) and the goal (open page-level context menus). It implicitly separates itself from browser_click/browser_double_click via 'right-click' but never names them, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 note that Chrome's native context menu does not open via CDP is genuinely useful scope guidance, implying this tool only works for in-page menus. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives statement or routing to a sibling tool, so usage is only implied.

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