sleeper_dblclick

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 and delivers nothing: no word on whether the selector is auto-waited/scrolled into view, whether the double-click dispatches full event sequences, what errors occur on a missing element, or whether the tab/profile context matters. This is effectively zero behavioral disclosure for an interactive tool.

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 words is not conciseness but under-specification; the terse phrasing leaves every sentence-sized gap an agent would need filled. What is present is front-loaded, but there is essentially nothing to front-load.

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 3-parameter interactive browser tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits essentially all context: selector semantics, tab/profile scoping, wait behavior, and failure modes. It is not sufficient for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% — only 'profile' is documented in the schema, while 'selector' and 'tab' are bare strings. The description adds no parameter meaning at all (no selector syntax guidance, no explanation of tab vs. profile scoping), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb (double-click) and its target (element), so the basic purpose is clear. However, it does nothing to distinguish this tool from the adjacent sleeper_click or sleeper_click_text siblings, leaving the agent to guess when a double-click is wanted over a single click.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the single-click alternative, and no prerequisites or ordering constraints. The agent gets no help deciding between this and the many other click-family tools.

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