Click or hover an element

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses additional behavioral traits: it waits for the element to be actionable and returns a page snapshot. These are useful for agent planning and are not captured in the structured annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long, with the first sentence front-loading the core actions and the second adding key behavioral details (waiting and snapshot return). Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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's complexity (6 parameters, nested target object, no output schema), the description adequately covers the operation and return value. The schema handles parameter semantics, and the description explicitly notes the snapshot return, which is essential since there is no output schema. It could mention potential navigation side effects, but openWorldHint partly covers this, making the description sufficiently 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?

The schema already documents most parameters with descriptions (target selector strategies, modifiers, tabIndex, profileId), and the tool's description adds no parameter-level explanation beyond what the schema provides. At 67% schema coverage, the description does not compensate for the undocumented timeout parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function with specific verbs (click, double-click, right-click, hover) and a resource (an element). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_navigate (navigation) and browser_type (keyboard input) by focusing on pointer actions, and it also mentions the waiting behavior and snapshot return, reinforcing its purpose.

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 implies the tool is for any element interaction involving clicks or hover, and the note about waiting for actionability suggests it is appropriate for dynamic pages. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., 'for selecting a dropdown value, use browser_select_option'), so it provides clear context but no explicit when-not guidance.

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