mouse_click

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

The annotations are all false and therefore convey little behavioral detail, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful context by saying coordinates are optional and that the click happens at the current mouse position, and it states that a confirmation string is returned. However, it does not disclose side effects such as focus changes or window activation, nor whether the pointer is moved before clicking.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence for the core behavior, a minimal Args line, and a Returns line. Every sentence earns its place and there is no repetition of annotations or schema noise.

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 low-complexity mouse action with an output schema and nested parameter descriptions, the description is largely sufficient: it states the action, the optional-position behavior, the input fields, and the return value. It lacks only the higher-level usage boundaries, which are already penalized under Usage Guidelines.

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?

The top-level 'params' parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It lists the three fields and enumerates the button choices, and 'current position' implies x and y are optional. It does not explain coordinate origin, bounds, or null behavior, though the nested schema partially fills in optionality and integer ranges.

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 opening phrase 'Kattintas a megadott (vagy a jelenlegi) pozicion' clearly states a specific action (click) on a resource (mouse position), and the optional-coordinate clause distinguishes it from mouse_move and mouse_double_click. An agent can immediately tell what the tool does without needing to compare schemas.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like mouse_double_click, mouse_move, or keyboard interaction. It implies that omitting coordinates clicks at the current position, but it never states exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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