browser_get_element_at_point

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions automatic iframe traversal, a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it changes state) or behavior on out-of-bounds coordinates. For a read-like tool, this is adequate but could be more transparent.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, followed by a concise list of returns and a key behavioral note.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values and special behavior (iframe traversal). Minor gaps include lack of error conditions (e.g., out-of-bounds) and handling of invisible elements, but overall sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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% with clear descriptions for x and y coordinates. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 gets the topmost element at given coordinates and returns specific data (tag, text, backendNodeId). It distinguishes from sibling tools like coordinate_click or get_element_tree by focusing on retrieval rather than interaction or full tree.

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 inspecting elements at a point, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., coordinate_click for clicking, get_element_tree for broader context). No when-not-to-use or exclusions provided.

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