qt_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only names the action. It says nothing about whether the click blocks until the event loop processes, what happens if the widget is not visible or not found, whether coordinates are scaled by DPI, or whether the operation is safe to repeat. For a UI-mutating tool this is a meaningful gap.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the arg list is terse with no filler. Every line carries information; only the missing instance entry counts against it.

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 four of five parameters are covered. Still missing are the 'instance' parameter's purpose and any note on failure behavior or post-click verification, which matter for an automation click in a multi-instance Qt environment.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does substantially: it supplies the accepted button values ('left', 'right', 'middle'), the accepted modifier names, the meaning of position as widget-relative [x, y], and the default of center (which the schema does not express). However, the 'instance' parameter is entirely undocumented, leaving one of five params with no semantics anywhere.

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 and resource ("Click a widget"), which is immediately actionable and distinguishable from siblings like qt_type or qt_key_press. It does not, however, differentiate itself from qt_trigger_action or qt_invoke_slot, which are plausible alternatives for activating a widget.

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 note that ref comes "from qt_snapshot" implies a prerequisite workflow (snapshot, then click), which is useful implied guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as qt_trigger_action for non-mouse activation.

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