browser_double_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action without detailing side effects, event dispatch, waiting behavior, or whether the element must be visible/enabled. This leaves significant ambiguity for a mutation-like interaction.

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 short and free of fluff, but it is under-specified. It conveys the core action but omits useful context that could be included in a single additional sentence (e.g., usage nuance, return behavior). It is concise but not optimally informative.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is somewhat minimal but still lacks essential context for an agent: when to prefer it over siblings, what to expect after double-clicking, and any side effects. More detail would improve completeness.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'selector' parameter with a clear description ('CSS selector of the element'). The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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') and the resource ('an element'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It differentiates from siblings like browser_click and browser_right_click through the specific verb, though it does not elaborate on scope or use case.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_click or browser_hover. There is no mention of typical double-click scenarios (e.g., selecting text, opening files) or prerequisites.

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