astrax_doble_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 button (left) and action type, but says nothing about the coordinate system, whether the cursor is moved first, focus/OS requirements, or failure behavior when no element is at (x, y).

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and the use-cases in a compact parenthetical. No wasted words.

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, and this is a relatively simple pointer action. Still, with zero annotation coverage and no parameter documentation, the missing coordinate semantics leave a real gap for correct invocation.

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% for both required parameters; they appear only as bare 'X'/'Y' integer titles. The description repeats '(x, y)' but adds no coordinate origin, unit, or range, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Doble clic izquierdo en (x, y)') and clarifies the intent with concrete examples (open files/icons, select word). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling astrax_clic by the 'doble' qualifier, though it never explicitly names the single-click sibling.

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?

The parenthetical examples ('abrir archivos/iconos, seleccionar palabra') imply the contexts where a double-click is appropriate, which is genuine usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-astrax_clic statement and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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