browser_click

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description's note that it is rejected in read-only mode adds a specific behavioral trait: the tool requires write access. This goes beyond the annotation by stating the default mode rejection. However, it does not describe other behaviors such as waiting for navigation, error handling, or side effects. Given annotations cover the read/write nature, this adds moderate value.

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 two short sentences, with the primary action stated first and the rejection condition second. There is zero extraneous text, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 tool with one parameter fully documented by the schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: it clicks an element and is rejected in read-only mode. It does not mention return values or preconditions like element visibility, but for a basic click, this is likely sufficient. The absence of an output schema means return semantics are not critical, so completeness is adequate.

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%, and the schema already describes the selector parameter fully ('클릭할 요소의 CSS 셀렉터'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. With high coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate further.

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 states '요소를 클릭한다' (clicks an element), which is a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_fill (which fills forms) and browser_get_text (which reads text) without ambiguity. The action is specific and unambiguous.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or situations where a different tool would be more appropriate. The only extra note is about read-only mode, but that's a rejection condition, not a usage guideline.

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