List clickable elements

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds two meaningful scope constraints beyond the annotation: only *visible* elements are returned, and only those on the *active* page. It does not mention whether off-screen elements appear or how ids are invalidated after navigation, but the visibility/active-page caveats are real added value.

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 states what is listed, where it comes from, what the ids look like, and which tools consume them. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope (active page, visible only), return shape (e1, e2 ids), and downstream use. Minor unknowns remain (behavior after scroll or navigation, whether the list is paginated), but nothing blocks correct 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The mention of the returned id scheme is a bonus rather than a parameter explanation.

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 uses a specific verb+resource (visible links, buttons, form fields) scoped to the active page, and the id format (e1, e2, …) makes clear what it returns. It differentiates itself from content-oriented siblings like browser_read by naming the click/type consumers, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

By stating the ids exist 'for browser_click / browser_type', it implies the workflow: call this first to obtain element handles, then act. The context is clear but there is no explicit when-not guidance or alternative named (e.g., a text-extraction tool for reading rather than interacting).

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