browser_click

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses an unusual side effect, the on-page cursor being shown first, but says nothing about failure behavior when no element matches, whether it scrolls into view, whether it waits for the element, or whether clicking may navigate the page.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the secondary visual behavior trailing. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers the action and addressing modes adequately. The remaining gap is what an agent should expect afterwards, such as a returned snapshot, navigation, or an error, which is a moderate omission for a browser automation step.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates for the undocumented 'selector' parameter by explaining it accepts either a CSS selector or exact visible text, which is essential and absent from the schema. The 'label' parameter is documented in the schema itself, so the gap is covered.

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 (click) and target (an element), and specifies the two accepted addressing modes, CSS selector or exact visible text. This is enough to distinguish it from browser_type or browser_scroll among siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implies when to use it (targeting an element by selector or visible text) but gives no explicit when-not conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives such as browser_type for text entry or browser_press_key for keyboard actions.

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