Double-click page element

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds value beyond that by mentioning that the action is serialized with all browser work in that session and that an ambiguous locator returns LOCATOR_AMBIGUOUS. This provides useful behavioral context not captured in structured metadata.

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 two sentences in length, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant or vague phrasing. Every sentence adds meaningful information: the first defines the action, the second gives usage and behavioral caveats.

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 5 parameters with zero schema descriptions and is a mutation action, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, prerequisites (e.g., page must be open), and return format details (though an output schema exists). The description covers usage guidance and some behavior but does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of schema details.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. However, it only mentions 'semantic or CSS locator' (giving some hint about the locator parameter) but says nothing about sessionId, pageId, ref, or timeoutMs. The description fails to explain the purpose or format of these parameters, leaving the agent without adequate guidance.

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: double-click a semantic or CSS locator on a specifically addressed page. It differentiates from siblings like browser_click by specifying 'only when the application assigns distinct double-click behavior' and 'one explicitly addressed page,' making the scope precise and distinguishing it from other browser interaction tools.

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 explicitly conditions when to use the tool ('only when the application assigns distinct double-click behavior'), which tells the agent not to use it for simple clicks. It also implies the need for a page context via 'explicitly addressed page,' but it does not explicitly name alternative tools like browser_click, leaving some room for inference.

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