real_click

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

Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: genuine isTrusted click, refuses to click outside Floorp or if not foreground, and Windows-only restriction. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) are consistent and not contradicted.

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 efficient sentences: first defines purpose and nature, second provides constraints and usage guidance. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully covers intent, constraints (window bounds, foreground requirement), platform (Windows), and parameter usage. No gaps for a click action tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Screen X (pixels)', 'Mouse button. Default: left'). The tool description does not add further parameter-specific detail beyond stating coordinate system context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verb 'Click' and resource 'real OS mouse at a screen pixel inside the Floorp window', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like click, double_click, and right_click by emphasizing genuine isTrusted click and OS-level simulation.

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?

Provides clear guidance to use window_bounds to find the range and refuses to click outside Floorp or if not foreground. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the plain 'click' tool, leaving the agent to infer when this is preferable.

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