sleeper_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose what happens if the selector matches nothing, whether it waits/auto-retries, whether the click scrolls the element into view, or any error/permission behavior for a mutation-style 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, correctly leading with the action and target. It is efficiently sized, though minimally informative given the room available.

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, no annotations, and one of three parameters undocumented. For a browser mutation action in a large sibling set, the description does not supply enough context about behavior, targeting alternatives, or results to be complete.

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 only 33% (only 'profile' is documented). The description does add meaningful value by noting ':has-text' selector support, but the 'tab' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, so the gap is not fully compensated.

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 (click) and resource (element by CSS selector), and the ':has-text' note signals selector-based targeting, distinguishing it from text-based siblings like sleeper_click_text. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With close siblings such as sleeper_click_text, sleeper_click_all, and sleeper_dblclick available, the description leaves the agent to infer that this tool is the selector-based variant without stating it.

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