browser_click_at

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 clarifies the coordinate frame ('relative to a frame's viewport') and how to target nested frames, which are meaningful behavioral traits. It does not mention click event details, wait behavior, or side effects, but these are less critical for a simple coordinate click 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?

The description is two sentences long, with the core action first and usage guidance second. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or filler. This is a model of conciseness.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides necessary context for when to use coordinate-based clicking and how to handle nested frames. It does not explain return values, but that is not essential for a click action. The description, combined with the schema, provides sufficient context for most use cases.

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 descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning by reinforcing the coordinate system and frame chaining, but this largely duplicates the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not significantly add beyond the structured 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 'Click at (x, y) relative to a frame's viewport,' which identifies the specific verb, resource, and coordinate system. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting the use case 'when snapshot/refs are unavailable (e.g. cross-origin or canvas),' separating it from element-based click tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use when snapshot/refs are unavailable' and gives examples (cross-origin, canvas), which clearly indicates when to use the tool. It also instructs to 'Chain frameSelector for nested frames,' providing practical usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusions.

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