browser_click_at_rel_debug

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 what it returns (screenshot, page coordinates, in-frame pixel) and a key limitation ('No dot drawn'), which is valuable behavioral context. It does not mention error behavior or side effects, but for a read-only debug tool this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded with the main output, and every word adds value. It conveys the essential information without any redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 debug tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return value, key limitation, and usage intent. It lacks details on error handling or coordinate interpretation, but the tool's scope is narrow and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 little beyond the schema, only re-mentioning rx and ry in the context of click_at_rel. It does not provide extra meaning for frameSelector or the exact format of coordinates.

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 tool returns a frame screenshot plus exact page coordinates and in-frame pixel where click_at_rel(rx, ry) would click. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'No dot drawn' and 'use to verify target', contrasting with actual click tools like browser_click_at_rel.

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 phrase 'use to verify target' gives a clear when-to-use scenario. It implies this is a debugging/verification alternative to click_at_rel, and the context of sibling tools reinforces that. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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