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 of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool uses trusted CDP mouse events, that it only opens in-page menus (not Chrome's native context menu), and that web apps may render their own menus. This is significant behavioral context beyond the schema. It could add more about side effects (e.g., whether the right-click triggers other events), but the key limitation is clearly stated.

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 with no wasted words. The core action and purpose are front-loaded, and the critical limitation (native context menu won't open) is stated immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the purpose, the limitation, and the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe what happens after the right-click (e.g., whether a menu appears and how the agent should interact with it), but this is not essential for invoking the tool correctly.

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 the single parameter (selector) as 'CSS or text selector'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 action (right-click an element) and the resource (an element via CSS/text selector), and distinguishes it from the sibling browser_click and browser_double_click by specifying right-click behavior. It also notes the purpose (opening page-level context menus), which adds clarity. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with browser_click_xy, which is a coordinate-based click, so it's not fully differentiated from all siblings.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to open page-level context menus, especially in web apps like OWA or Google Docs. It also provides an important exclusion: Chrome's native context menu does not open via CDP, so this tool won't work for that. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for native menus, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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