click_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavior (no cursor movement) but omits other behavioral traits like permissions, side effects, trigger behavior, or error handling. It is moderately transparent but incomplete.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and distinguishing feature efficiently. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how to identify the target window using hwnd/pid/processName/titleContains, which is crucial for correct usage. The description only covers the click mechanism, leaving significant context gaps.

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 coverage is 56%, above 50% baseline. The description adds no further parameter details beyond the schema. With moderate schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 posts mouse click messages to window-relative coordinates without moving the physical cursor. It uses a specific verb ('Post') and resource ('mouse click messages'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like move_mouse_window and click_menu_item.

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 implies usage when a click without cursor movement is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks explicit 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance, making it adequate but not strong.

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