safari_right_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 but doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., opening a native context menu, triggering navigation, or requiring element visibility). It also doesn't disclose whether the action is a simulated right-click or native OS event. This is minimal for a mutation-like action.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action and targeting modes with zero waste. It is compact and easily scannable.

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 right-click action with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., element not found, off-screen coordinates) or the tab receipt parameter's role in scoping, which could matter for multi-tab workflows. Given the tool's simplicity and no annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds the clarification that either selector or coordinates can be used, which is helpful. However, it doesn't go beyond that—no details on precedence, required visibility, or how coordinates interact with the viewport. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Right-click' and the resource 'an element', and specifies two targeting modes (CSS selector or x/y coordinates). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like safari_click and safari_double_click by the context-menu intent, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 says what it does but not when to use it versus other click variants (e.g., safari_click, safari_double_click, safari_hover). It doesn't state conditions like 'use when you need to open a context menu' or 'use when the element is not clickable by selector'. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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