List clickable elements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: only visible elements are returned, and the payload includes dropdown options and toggle on/off state, which tells the agent what fidelity to expect. It omits viewport/iframe scope and any listing caps.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the element inventory and ends with the actionable id mapping. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what is listed, what the ids are for) comes first.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return shape by enumerating element kinds, options, toggle state, and id format — sufficient for an agent to consume the result. Minor gaps remain around scope (viewport only? iframes?) and result size limits.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; baseline 4 applies. The schema is empty and fully self-consistent with the no-argument design.

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+resource: it lists visible interactive elements (links, buttons, fields, dropdowns, toggles) on the active page, and explains the id scheme (e1, e2, …). An agent can tell exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling ui_elements, which is the one ambiguity left.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the ids exist 'for browser_click / browser_type / browser_select', which sketches the intended workflow of enumerate-then-act. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance, and no mention of how this differs from ui_elements or look.

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