astrax_clic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the click targets the element center, which is useful, but says nothing about side effects, whether a single or repeated action occurs, required focus/visibility, or blocking/wait behavior for a tool that mutates UI state.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action and its target come first, the parameter vocabulary second. It is efficient, though it could be marginally tighter in the coordinate framing.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with zero annotation coverage, 0% schema description coverage, and a UI-mutating action, the description is too thin. It omits coordinate reference frame, element-center semantics for x/y, and any precondition or failure behavior an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 0% and the schema lists no enum for boton, so the description adds real value by enumerating valid values (left|right|middle) and confirming the default. However, x and y are only named, with no explanation of coordinate origin or reference frame, leaving the two required parameters underspecified.

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 (click) and the coordinate target, and clarifies it points to the CENTER of the element. The purpose is unmistakable, but it does not differentiate itself from the close sibling astrax_doble_clic or explain the relationship to astrax_tecla/astrax_atajo for input actions.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to reach for this versus astrax_doble_clic, astrax_tecla, or astrax_atajo, nor whether any precondition (focus, element visibility) applies.

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