browser_right_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that events are trusted CDP mouse events and explicitly warns that native Chrome context menus do not open. This is valuable and goes beyond what the tool name alone communicates, though it does not describe return values or failure behavior.

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, each earning its place: the first states the action and purpose, the second provides a critical limitation. The most important caveat is placed prominently, and there is no redundant filler.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, valid usage scenarios, and the key behavioral limitation. It does not mention what happens when the selector does not match or what the tool returns, but these are minor given the simplicity and lack of an output schema.

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 input schema already documents the sole parameter as 'CSS or text selector' with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning about selector format, scoping, or expected element state, so the baseline score of 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 action ('Right-click an element') and the intended outcome ('open page-level context menus'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like browser_click, browser_double_click, and browser_click_xy because it names right-clicking and context-menu behavior.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: for applications like OWA/Google Docs that render in-page context menus. It also gives an important exclusion: Chrome's native context menu will not open via CDP. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the usage context is fairly clear.

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