click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation action ('click') but doesn't explain what happens behaviorally—whether it reveals cells, triggers mines, affects game state, or has side effects. This leaves critical gameplay behavior unspecified.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action and target. It's front-loaded with essential information and has no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, parameter meanings, error conditions, and integration with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly in Minesweeper gameplay.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'row' and 'col' implicitly via 'cell', but doesn't explain what these parameters represent (e.g., zero-indexed coordinates, valid ranges, or board boundaries), failing to compensate for the schema 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 clearly states the action ('click') and target resource ('a cell on the Minesweeper board'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'flag' or 'unflag' which also interact with board cells, missing full sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'flag' or 'unflag', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an active game started with 'start_game'. It only states what the tool does, not when or why to use it.

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