double_click

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the action and does not mention whether the tool waits for the element, throws on failure, or supports the locator strategies shown in the schema. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and immediately parseable by an agent.

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?

While the schema documents the parameters well, the description alone is too thin for a tool with close siblings and no output schema or annotations. It lacks guidance on return behavior, failure semantics, waiting behavior, and when a double-click is the right interaction compared to click or right_click.

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 parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning about how 'selector', 'by', or 'timeout' interact, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('double-click') and a clear resource ('element'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like click and right_click. Even without extra detail, an agent can tell exactly what action this tool performs.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose double_click over click, right_click, hover, or other interaction tools. The verb implies a double-click, but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided.

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