browser_click

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Perform click'. It omits critical details like whether the click waits for elements, scrolls into view, or triggers events. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 short sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is under-informative rather than effectively concise. A well-structured description would be front-loaded with the action and then elaborate on key aspects.

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 the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is vastly incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or required conditions. For a tool of this complexity, far more detail is expected.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the tool description provides no explanation for any parameter. The meaning of 'ref', 'element', and 'doubleClick' are left entirely to inference, making correct parameter use nearly impossible without external context.

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 states the action (click) and resource (web page), which is clear but lacks specificity. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'interact' or 'browser_type'. A more specific description would improve clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or typical usage scenarios. For example, it doesn't mention that a page must be already loaded or that ref might be an element selector.

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