imgui_click_widget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it simulates a click but does not disclose side effects (e.g., does it trigger callbacks? is the click actually processed by the UI or just synthetically forwarded? does it require the widget to be visible/enabled first?). For an input simulation tool, this behavioral ambiguity is a notable 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 a single efficient sentence that states the action clearly with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose effectively. However, being this minimal means it fails to add the behavioral context needed for a simulation tool, but for pure conciseness, it earns a strong score.

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?

With 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is decent but thin. The schema documents all params, so the core mechanics are covered, but for a mouse-simulation tool with many siblings (hover, drag, press_key, set_mouse_pos), the description should clarify click semantics relative to those siblings and any prerequisites (visibility, enabled state). The description is minimally complete but doesn't rise above adequacy.

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%, so all three parameters (id, button, window) are already documented in the schema. The description adds the contextual meaning of 'simulate a click' which ties the parameters together. Per the rubric, 100% coverage earns a baseline of 3, and the description doesn't add extra parameter-level semantics beyond the schema (e.g., no clarification on what happens if id is invalid).

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 a specific verb+resource pattern: 'Simulate a mouse click on a widget by its ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling interaction tools (hover, drag, press_key, set_mouse_pos) since it targets a specific widget by ID rather than coordinates. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like imgui_hover_widget, imgui_press_key, or imgui_set_mouse_pos. There is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., must the widget be visible or hoverable first?), or scenarios where clicking by ID is preferred over coordinate-based clicks. The action is clear, but the when-to-use context is entirely absent.

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