browser_right_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool uses trusted CDP mouse events and that only in-page menus will work, while the native browser menu cannot be triggered via CDP. This is important, non-obvious context beyond what the schema offers.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the critical limitation is stated in the second sentence. Every word contributes useful information.

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 one-parameter action tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the mechanism, the intended use case, and the key limitation. An agent has what it needs to decide whether to invoke this tool and what to expect.

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% and the single selector parameter is already described as 'CSS or text selector.' The description adds 'an element' but no additional syntax or selection guidance, so it does not significantly enhance the schema's parameter documentation.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb (right-click) and resource (element), and explains the intended outcome (opening page-level context menus). It distinguishes this action from plain click/double-click tools and clarifies the web-app vs. native-context-menu distinction.

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 conveys when the tool is useful: for in-page context menus rendered by web apps like OWA or Google Docs. It also explicitly warns that Chrome's native context menu will not open, which is a clear when-not-to-use signal. It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the limitation provides practical routing guidance.

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