browser_locate

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that coordinates are captured at call time and may be stale after page reflow. Also lists specific error codes with explanations. Lacks explicit statement that the tool is read-only, but the caveat implies no side effects.

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 concise: three sentences covering purpose, usage guidance, caveats, and error types. No extraneous words, well structured with important info front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return type (physical screen coordinates) and compatibility. It also covers common errors. Could be more complete by specifying the exact format of coordinates (e.g., x, y integers), but overall sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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 parameters are already described in schema. The description adds the context that the output is screen coordinates compatible directly with mouse_click, which is not in schema. However, it does not add further detail to parameter meanings beyond what's in the schema.

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 verb 'Find', resource 'DOM element by CSS selector', and the output 'physical screen coordinates'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting compatibility with mouse_click and referencing alternatives like browser_click and browser_overview.

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?

Explicitly recommends alternatives: 'Prefer browser_click to find+click in one step' and 'Prefer browser_overview to discover selectors'. Also includes caveats about stale coordinates, guiding when to use this tool vs others.

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