browser_click

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

Description reveals a key behavioral trait: the Bezier path with hesitation to defeat trajectory analyzers when SAB_HUMAN_MOUSE is true. Since no annotations are provided, this disclosure is valuable, though it omits other traits like waiting, retry logic, or failure outcomes.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first states purpose, second adds critical behavioral detail. No unnecessary words, information is 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?

Covers purpose and a key behavioral trait, but lacks details on parameters (button, clickCount), preconditions (snapshot dependency), error handling, and output (none provided). For a simple click tool with no annotations, the description is adequate but has notable gaps.

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 33% (only ref described). Description adds minimal parameter context: it mentions ref addressing but does not explain button (left/right/middle) or clickCount (double-click, triple-click). The description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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?

Clearly states 'Click an element addressed by its ref', identifying the action and target. Distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_type (typing) and browser_select (selection) but doesn't explicitly contrast 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., browser_type or browser_select). The mention of SAB_HUMAN_MOUSE suggests a scenario for evasion, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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