wavexis_right_click

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, indicating the tool modifies state. The description adds valuable behavioral details: 'Side effects: Fires a contextmenu event on the element, typically opening a context menu in the browser.' and outlines the return format. However, it doesn't specify if the tool waits for the context menu to appear or any other post-action 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?

The description is concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded: it starts with the purpose, immediately gives alternatives, then side effects, and finally return format. Every sentence provides necessary information 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 covers purpose, usage alternatives, side effects, and return format. Given the tool has multiple parameters and an output schema, it provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when and how to use it. However, it could briefly mention that it operates on the current page or session context, which is implied but not explicit.

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 description only mentions the 'CSS selector' parameter, which is already described in the input schema. Other parameters (url, backend, headless, etc.) are not elaborated in the description. Since the input schema itself contains descriptions for each property, the description adds minimal value to parameter understanding, meeting the baseline.

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's purpose: 'Right-click an element matching a CSS selector.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning alternatives: 'Use wavexis_click for standard left clicks or wavexis_double_click for double clicks.'

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives ('Use wavexis_click for standard left clicks or wavexis_double_click for double clicks.') and mentions side effects, giving clear context for usage.

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