dblclick

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and says nothing about side effects (navigation, form submission, text selection), wait/settle behavior after the click, or failure modes for missing or non-interactable elements. It discloses no behavioral traits beyond the action name.

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?

A single short sentence with zero waste and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must cover return behavior, timing/waits, and error conditions on its own — and it does not. For an interaction tool with implicit side effects, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the CSS selector. The description adds no meaning about selector syntax, matching rules, or behavior with multiple matches, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Double-click an element'), which is clearer than the bare name alone. However, it draws no distinction from closely related siblings like click, mouseClick, or mouseDown/mouseUp, so an agent must infer the boundaries itself.

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?

No guidance on when a double-click is appropriate versus the many sibling click/mouse tools, and no prerequisites such as element visibility or scroll-into-view requirements. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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