browser_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 only states that a click is performed and returns a JSON response, but omits important context such as whether the element must be visible, whether the click triggers navigation, prerequisites like the browser being open, or error handling for missing elements. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.

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 extremely concise, with a single-sentence purpose followed by a structured list of arguments and a return note. Every sentence earns its place, and the action is front-loaded. No unnecessary verbiage or repetition of schema details.

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?

Although the tool has only two parameters and an output schema exists (per context signals), the description still feels incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., browser must be running, serialno must correspond to an active device), side effects, or what the JSON response contains beyond being a generic API response. An agent might call this tool without understanding the environment requirements, leading to errors.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains serialno as 'from list_devices' and selector as 'A CSS selector,' which is useful and goes beyond the schema's bare property names. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes a valid selector, what happens if multiple elements match, or the format expected for serialno. It provides basic meaning but not comprehensive semantics.

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: 'Click the element matching a CSS selector.' It specifies the verb (click) and the resource (element matched by selector), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The name and sibling context (browser_* vs mobile_* vs computer_*) further distinguish it, so an agent can easily tell it apart from mobile_tap or computer_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mobile_tap or computer_click is provided. The usage is implied by the name and the serialno parameter (browser device), but there is no statement such as 'use this for browser interactions only' or 'use mobile_tap for mobile devices.' It does not actively mislead, but it leaves the choice to inference.

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