scratchjr_click_character

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds a useful precondition about the character being on the current page. It does not disclose potential side effects of the click event, such as triggering project scripts that modify state, but for a simple event trigger this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 sentences convey the action, purpose, and a critical prerequisite without any filler. The most important information appears first, and every word earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and the main precondition. It omits expected return behavior, error handling when the character is not on the page, and how to identify the objectId, so it is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 description does not explain what objectId refers to or how to obtain it. The parameter name and tool name make it inferable that objectId identifies the character, but the description adds no meaning beyond the raw 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 states a specific action ('Trigger a character click event') and a concrete resource ('character'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It also clarifies the intended use case ('to test an interactive project'), and the sibling list contains no other click/event tool, so it is effectively distinguished.

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 description implies when to use the tool ('to test an interactive project') and gives a key precondition ('Character must be on the current page'). However, it offers no explicit comparison to alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the usage context from the sibling names.

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