browser_locate

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

The description discloses that coordinates are captured at call time and may be stale if the page reflows before mouse_click. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and covers the main behavioral trait. It does not mention any destructive or read-only aspects, but given the tool's nature, the description is adequate.

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 concise with two sentences that front-load the purpose and include usage recommendations and caveats. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 description explains the output is physical screen coordinates compatible with mouse_click, and mentions that includeContext appends activeTab and readyState. However, the exact response structure (e.g., x, y, width, height) is not explicitly described, which would help with completeness given no 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides example CSS selectors and explains the purpose of includeContext and include parameters, but this adds limited value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 finds a DOM element by CSS selector and returns physical screen coordinates. It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_click and browser_overview by specifying that this tool is for finding coordinates, while browser_click combines find and click, and browser_overview helps discover selectors.

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?

Explicitly states when to prefer alternatives: 'Prefer browser_click to find+click in one step. Prefer browser_overview to discover selectors.' Also includes a caveat about stale coordinates after page reflow, guiding proper usage.

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