browser_click_ref

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('click') but does not reveal side effects (e.g., navigation, form submission), whether it waits for page loads, error conditions, or what happens after the click. 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, concise sentence that directly conveys the core functionality with no extraneous words. While it could benefit from additional details, it earns a high score for efficiency and lack of verbosity.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is markedly incomplete. It does not cover return values, error conditions, or the relationship between 'ref' and the snapshot. For a click tool that likely interacts with a live browser page, more context is essential.

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 input schema has two parameters ('id' and 'ref') with zero description coverage. The description adds minimal meaning by stating that 'ref' is a 'ref number from the most recent browser_snapshot', which hints at its source. However, it does not explain the 'id' parameter (likely a tab or session identifier), leaving the agent with incomplete understanding.

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 ('click') and the target ('element by its ref number from the most recent browser_snapshot'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'browser_type_ref' and 'desktop_click' by specifying the use of a reference number from a snapshot. However, it does not explain what a 'ref' number is or how it relates to the snapshot.

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 compared to alternatives such as 'desktop_click' or 'browser_type_ref'. It does not mention prerequisites like having a recent 'browser_snapshot' or the need to identify an element's ref beforehand. The description implies a specific workflow but offers no explicit usage context.

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