browser_click

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 does not disclose what happens after a click (navigation, form submission, errors), whether the tool waits for the element, or any side effects or permissions required. Only the input mechanism is described.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes to defining the action and its inputs.

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 browser action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical behavioral context: post-click behavior, error handling, waiting, and return value. It is sufficient to identify the tool but not to invoke it robustly.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a light restatement ('CSS selector or visible text') that mirrors the schema but does not extend it with format, priority, or interaction rules between selector and text.

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 states a specific verb (clicks), resource (element), scope (active or specified tab), and input methods (CSS selector or visible text). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like browser_type or browser_scroll, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_type or browser_evaluate. The phrase 'active or specified tab' hints at context but does not state prerequisites or selection criteria.

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