click_at_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the basic action sequence but omits important behaviors: error handling if image not found, wait times, scrolling needed, return value, or that humanize_move introduces random delays. The lack of these details is a significant 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 description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The emoji provides quick visual context. No extraneous words; every sentence 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?

Given the tool's complexity (template matching + composite click), the description omits parameter details, return value (despite having an output schema), and error conditions. It is not complete enough for an agent to safely invoke without guessing.

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 add meaning. It only implicitly covers 'template_path' (the image to find) but fails to explain 'threshold' (controls matching sensitivity) or 'humanize' (whether to add human-like randomness). Most parameter semantics are missing.

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 it finds an image via template matching and clicks its center. It uses specific verbs ('Find', 'click') and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'find_by_image' and 'humanize_click' by explicitly stating it combines multiple actions.

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 explicitly suggests use cases: 'visual CAPTCHAs, custom buttons without reliable selectors, or interacting with canvas-based UIs.' It does not mention when not to use or directly compare with alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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