browser_cdp_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it uses a CDP input event with isTrusted=true, avoids pixel guessing, and returns a fresh ARIA snapshot. It does not mention potential side effects like triggering navigation or state changes, but the disclosure of the input mechanism is sufficient for understanding its behavior in context.

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 paragraph with essential information front-loaded. It is concise and avoids unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence adds value: purpose, advantage over sibling, technical detail, platform constraint, and return value. Slightly longer than necessary but 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (CDP input event, four parameters, output snapshot), the description covers the main aspects: mechanism, differentiation, return value. However, it lacks details on parameter semantics and potential error conditions (e.g., if ref is invalid), and does not mention the output schema explicitly. Still, it is largely complete for typical usage.

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?

Input schema coverage is 0% and the description only implicitly explains the 'ref' parameter by stating the element is identified by [ref=...]. The other parameters (session_id, button, double) are not described at all. Given the low schema coverage, the description should add more parameter-level detail, but it does not.

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 tool clicks an element by its [ref=...] using a trusted Chromium CDP input event, and explicitly distinguishes it from browser_mouse_click and browser_click by highlighting the technical advantages (cursorless, no pixel guessing, isTrusted=true). This makes the purpose highly specific and differentiated from 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 explicitly states 'Preferred over browser_mouse_click' and provides reasons for preference, along with the limitation 'Chromium only'. It gives clear context on when to use this tool (for bot-detection evasion) but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when a visible cursor is desired). Still, the guidance is strong and practical.

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