get_clickable_regions

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'auto-detects layout' and the parameter allows overriding, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if it relies on a current screenshot, or if it has side effects. The behavior is partially transparent but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that convey the core purpose and key behavior. Every word is necessary, and it is front-loaded with the main action.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It explains what bounding boxes are for but not the format of the return (e.g., coordinates, object structure). The distinction between layout options is covered by the schema, but the tool's role relative to complex UI detection is not fully contextualized.

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 the schema already fully documents the 'layout' parameter with enum values, default, and description. The tool's description adds only the auto-detection hint, which is already implicit in the default value 'auto'. No additional meaning is provided.

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 tool returns bounding boxes for specific UI elements (minimap, inventory, chat, compass) and auto-detects layout, distinguishing it from siblings like detect_layout (which only detects layout type) and find_object_on_screen (generic object detection). The verb 'Get' and resource 'bounding boxes' are unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as detect_layout or find_object_on_screen. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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