browser_triple_click

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It reveals the behavior (triple-click selects all text) but lacks disclosure of edge cases (e.g., if coordinates miss the element, or the element is not a text input), or potential side effects. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 succinct sentence with no wasted words. However, it lacks structural elements like front-loading the most critical information or separating details into bullet points.

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?

No output schema exists, and the tool is conceptually simple. The description covers the primary effect but omits details about coordinate origin, error handling, and behavior on non-element areas. It is minimally complete but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 input schema has two parameters (x, y) with 0% schema description coverage. The description only states 'at physical coordinates' without adding details on coordinate system (viewport vs document), units, or constraints. It barely adds value beyond the schema.

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 ('triple-click'), target ('physical coordinates'), and outcome ('select all text in the target element'). It includes an example ('select entire text in an input field') which reinforces understanding. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_click and browser_double_click.

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 usage for selecting all text via triple-click but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_select_all or other selection methods. No exclusions or context for appropriate use are provided.

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