browser_click_at_rel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the implementation method (Playwright page.mouse.click) and reliability, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., triggering events, scrolling) or prerequisites (e.g., frame must be loaded). For a mutating action with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then a clarifying example and implementation note. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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?

The tool is simple, and the schema covers all parameters, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description doesn't describe what happens upon success/failure or whether the click occurs even if no element is at the coordinates. It is adequate for basic usage but lacks deeper context for a complete picture.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example that maps (0.5, 0.9) to center-bottom, which is helpful but largely redundant with the per-parameter descriptions. It doesn't provide syntax details beyond what the schema already documents.

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 a specific action ('Click') with a precise scope ('at relative position (rx, ry) in [0..1] inside the frame'). The example '(0.5, 0.9) = center-bottom' further clarifies the behavior and distinguishes it from absolute-position click tools like 'browser_click_at'. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 implies usage for clicking at relative coordinates within a frame and mentions reliability ('Uses Playwright page.mouse.click for reliable coordinates'). It does not contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'browser_click' for element-based clicks) or state when not to use it. This is clear context but with no exclusions.

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