browser_click

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the fallback resolution behavior ('Tenta as estratégias em ordem até encontrar'), but omits what happens on total failure, whether it waits for the element, whether it scrolls into view, and whether the click navigates. For a mutating action with zero annotation coverage that is a meaningful gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the targeting strategies. Every clause adds information and nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim.

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?

Adequate for a 4-parameter tool whose schema is fully described, but with no output schema the description never says what a call returns or signals on success versus failure, which matters for an agent driving a browser loop. It also never mentions the [AGENT-BROWSER-TASK] convention required by the sole required parameter.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema; the description only echoes the three locator options without adding format or precedence detail ('em ordem' is never resolved into an explicit priority, e.g. selector before text before aria_label). Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Clica em um elemento da página') and enumerates the three locator strategies, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does and how it targets elements. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like browser_fill or browser_navigate, which keeps it from a 5.

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 only implied by the verb 'Clica' — there is no statement of when to prefer this over browser_fill (typing into fields) or browser_navigate (going to URLs), nor any prerequisite such as the page being loaded. The one piece of guidance given, that strategies are tried in order until one hits, is about resolution rather than tool selection.

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