browser_click_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It details the sequence: screenshot before, click, wait, screenshot after, image diff, error collection, and return. It also explains the 'autoReturn' parameter's behavior (goBack for URL nav, re-click for SPA toggle) and mentions silentFail errors. However, it does not cover potential side effects like navigation away from the original page or error handling when element is not found.

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: first sentence defines the workflow, second lists return values. It is concise without being overly terse. The structure is front-loaded with the main action. Every part adds value.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main flow and return values (navigation status, visual diff ratio, errors, screenshot paths). It also explains key parameter 'autoReturn'. Missing details: what happens if both 'text' and 'selector' are provided or neither, and error handling for element not found. Still, it provides enough context for typical usage.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates that 'text' and 'selector' are alternatives and explains 'autoReturn' slightly more. No significant additional context for other parameters.

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 purpose: 'Audit a single click' and describes the full workflow (screenshot→click→wait→screenshot→diff→error collection). The name also reinforces this purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it replaces multiple individual tool calls for click-through validation.

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 explicitly says 'One call replaces 6+ individual tool calls for click-through validation loops,' indicating when to use this tool as an alternative to chaining multiple browser tools. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is clear enough for agent decision-making.

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