GhostDesk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it performs a click action, monitors a 200x200 pixel zone for changes within 2 seconds, and provides feedback about success/failure through the screen_changed flag. It also explains what to do when the click misses (retry with adjusted coordinates or take new screenshot).

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 perfectly structured and concise. It starts with the core action, provides usage guidance, then details the return structure with clear bullet points. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 (interactive UI operation with feedback), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides excellent completeness. It explains what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, and how to interpret the results. The return value documentation compensates for the lack of output schema by clearly describing the response structure and semantics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. While it doesn't explicitly document individual parameters, it provides crucial semantic context about parameter usage ('Use coordinates from screen_shot() or inspect()') and the relationship between parameters and tool behavior. The description explains how the x,y parameters relate to screen coordinates and what happens when they're incorrect.

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 specific action ('Click at screen coordinates') and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning coordinate sources from screen_shot() or inspect(). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that differentiates it from other mouse-related tools like mouse_double_click or mouse_drag.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('Use coordinates from screen_shot() or inspect()') and implies when not to use it (when you don't have coordinates). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like mouse_double_click or provide specific exclusion criteria beyond the coordinate requirement.

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