chrome_locate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the tool's outputs (coordinates, size, text, viewport status), the 100% zoom requirement, and the behavior of scrollIntoView. This adds valuable context beyond the raw schema, though it omits failure modes or side effects.

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 only two sentences long, front-loading the primary purpose and followed by key details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 there is no output schema, the description covers the main return values and a critical constraint (zoom). It adequately addresses the tool's core use case, but does not mention error conditions or behavior when the selector is not found, which would provide extra completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances the schema by noting that scrollIntoView is an 'instant jump' and advises avoiding it while recording, which adds pragmatic guidance. The selector parameter is self-explanatory.

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's purpose: resolving a CSS selector to screen coordinates for mouse_move, and it lists additional outputs (size, text, viewport status). This distinguishes it from siblings like chrome_scroll and chrome_highlight, making its unique role evident.

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 provides clear usage context by specifying it should be used before mouse_move to get coordinates. It also includes an important warning about avoiding scrollIntoView during recording. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool compared to alternatives, so a small gap remains.

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