safari_double_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and targeting method but does not mention side effects, return value, timing, or behavior when both selector and coordinates are supplied. For a simple action this is a minor gap, but it still lacks transparency about execution details.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and target, and includes a helpful example in parentheses. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the action's simplicity.

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 simple double-click action with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks guidance on when to use this over sibling click tools, and it does not mention the receipt parameter's role in targeting a specific tab, though that is documented in the schema. The absence of annotations and output schema leaves the agent with limited context beyond the basic action.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds a minor clarification that targeting can be by CSS selector or x/y coordinates, but this is already implied by the schema fields. No additional semantic meaning is provided 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 (double-click), the target (element), and the two targeting methods (CSS selector or x/y coordinates). It also gives a concrete example ('to select a word in text'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like safari_click and safari_right_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 provides an example use case ('to select a word in text') that implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as safari_click for single clicks. The agent must infer that this is for double-click interactions, with no explicit routing or exclusions.

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