computer.click

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

The description discloses the resolution pipeline (accessibility → OCR → vision) and states that it verifies the result, providing substantive behavioral context beyond a bare 'clicks an element.' With no annotations present, this disclosure carries the full transparency burden; it doesn't cover failure handling, but the core behavior is clearly revealed.

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 two sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by target formats and resolution/verification behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or filler.

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 simple click action, the description covers the essential invocation details: what target forms are accepted and how the engine resolves them. It also mentions verification, giving the agent a sense of outcome handling. Minor omissions like failure behavior and exact return value are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the parameter meaning. It explains the required target parameter in detail, including visible text, element id from computer.observe, and coordinate-object format. Optional button and verify parameters are not elaborated, but their names and defaults are reasonably self-explanatory.

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 opens with the specific action 'Click a UI element,' naming both the verb and the resource. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like double_click and right_click by the generic click action and default left button.

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 explains the target formats that can be used (visible text, element id, coordinates), giving practical context for when this tool applies. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer click over siblings such as right_click or double_click, nor any exclusion criteria.

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