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 discloses that the tool uses human-like mouse movement and click delays, which implies it takes time and may be slower than a direct click. However, it does not mention potential side effects like triggering navigation, opening new tabs, or requiring the element to be visible. For a click action, these are useful to know, but the human-like behavior is a notable disclosure that sets expectations.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action (click an element) followed by the behavioral nuance (human-like movement and delays). No wasted words; it earns its place.

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 click tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers what it does and hints at the human-like behavior. However, it lacks any mention of what happens after the click (e.g., page navigation, waiting for page load) or any prerequisites (e.g., element must be visible/interactable). Given the tool's simplicity, a 3 is appropriate; it's minimally sufficient but not rich.

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 schema fully describes the selector parameter. The description doesn't add additional parameter semantics, but it does mention in the schema example the format of the selector (CSS). Since coverage is high, baseline is 3. The description adds a bit more by implying the selector must target an element that is clickable, but it doesn't go beyond the schema. Given the schema is already thorough, a 4 is justified due to the clear example in the schema and the description's focus on the click behavior.

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 action (click) and the target (an element on the page), and mentions the specific behavior of human-like movement and delays. It distinguishes from siblings like browser_navigate and browser_type by focusing on clicking existing elements. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other element-interaction tools like browser_evaluate or browser_scroll, though those are semantically different enough that the purpose is clear.

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: when you need to click an element on the page. However, it provides no when-not-to-use guidance or mentions alternatives like browser_type for typing or browser_evaluate for programmatic interaction. The human-like clicking nuance suggests it's meant for realistic user simulation, but this is not explicitly tied to use cases like testing or automation that requires stealth. Minimal guidance beyond the core action.

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