browser_click

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the locator resolution priority and the wait_stable behavior, but it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., navigation, popups), conditions like element visibility, or what happens if multiple elements match. This is a significant gap for a click action.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core action and then provides the priority order and a key behavioral flag in a compact and scannable form with no wasted words.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete. It provides locator guidance but leaves important parameters (confirmed, double_click) unexplained, and does not describe return values, error handling, or side effects. The tool is simple but the description gaps could lead to mis-invocation.

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?

The description explains several parameters through the priority list: pos (coordinates), ref (snapshot handle), selector, role+name, and name. It also explains wait_stable. However, it omits the meaning of confirmed, double_click, and task_id, leaving these ambiguous. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates.

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 starts with '点击页面元素' (click page elements), clearly stating the action and target. The locator priority list further clarifies what the tool does, and it is distinct from sibling tools like browser_type, browser_read, or browser_screenshot.

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 gives explicit guidance on how to specify the element via a priority order (pos → ref → selector → role+name → name), which directly assists the agent in choosing the right parameter combination. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool compared to other browser tools.

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