double_click_at

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains that a screenshot is returned by default and can be disabled, which is the key behavioral trait. However, it omits other potential behaviors (e.g., does it wait for UI responsiveness? Is the click guaranteed? Are there side effects on focus?).

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 sentences, no wasted words. The key action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a crucial usage tip and a parameter behavior note. Every sentence is necessary.

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 simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main action, return behavior, and a usage guideline. It could be improved by describing the output format of the screenshot or mentioning any constraints (e.g., if the coordinates must be within screen bounds). Overall, it's largely complete for practical use.

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 100% (all three parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds value by clarifying that x and y are screen coordinates (not relative to an element) and explains the default behavior of return_screenshot. This context enriches the parameter understanding beyond the 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 clearly states 'Double-click at x,y screen coordinates', establishing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'click_at', which is a single-click version; the distinction relies on the tool name alone.

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 explicit guidance: 'Prefer batch_actions when combining with other actions.' This helps the agent choose between performing multiple actions sequentially vs. batching. No explicit when-not-to-use advice is given, but the guidance is useful.

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