GhostDesk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it describes the return structure with three specific fields (action, screen_changed, reaction_time_ms), explains what screen_changed=false means ('click likely missed its target'), and specifies the detection zone (200x200 px) and timeframe (2 s). This goes beyond basic parameter documentation to reveal how the tool behaves and interprets results.

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: first sentence states purpose with examples, followed by a clear bulleted list of return values with helpful explanations. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundant information. It's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 moderate complexity (GUI interaction with feedback), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description does well by thoroughly documenting the return behavior and success detection logic. However, it misses some context like coordinate system explanation, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a mouse interaction tool with rich feedback, it's mostly complete but has minor 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter-specific information. It doesn't explain what x/y coordinates represent (e.g., screen pixels, relative positioning), the meaning of button options, or default behaviors. The description focuses on output semantics instead, leaving parameters undocumented beyond the schema's basic structure.

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's purpose: 'Double-click at screen coordinates' with specific examples of use cases ('opening files or selecting words'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mouse_click (single click) and mouse_drag, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings. The verb+resource combination is specific and actionable.

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 implied usage guidance through examples ('Use for opening files or selecting words'), but lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use instructions or named alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over mouse_click or other input tools, leaving some ambiguity about optimal selection.

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