browser_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states only that it performs a click, but gives no details about potential navigation, waiting behavior, side effects, or how the click is executed (e.g., whether it scrolls elements into view). This minimal information does not meaningfully illuminate the tool's behavior beyond its most basic action.

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 only one short sentence, which is concise in length, but it is under-specified. It does not include any of the key contextual information that would make the tool usable, such as how to specify the target element or what the parameters control. This is an extreme brevity that sacrifices necessary detail, resembling the 'Process' example that scored 2 for under-specification.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain any parameter semantics or usage context, making it impossible for an agent to know how to correctly invoke the tool beyond the required 'ref'. The description does not fulfill the enrichment expected for a tool with this complexity.

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 input schema has no descriptions for its 5 parameters, and the tool description does not mention any of them. It provides zero guidance on what 'ref', 'element', 'button', 'modifiers', or 'doubleClick' mean or how to use them. The description does not compensate at all for the 0% schema description coverage, leaving the agent completely uninformed about parameter semantics.

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 'Perform click on a web page' clearly identifies the action (click) and the target (web page). It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_hover, browser_drag, and browser_type by focusing specifically on a click action. However, it does not mention that the click can target an element or include modifiers, which slightly limits clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical scenarios (e.g., clicking buttons, links) or related tools like browser_hover or browser_drag. The description provides no context about prerequisites or when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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