computer.double_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action and target rules. It does not explain side effects, whether the mouse moves, what happens on failure, or any post-conditions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action immediately and adds a useful pointer to sibling behavior without unnecessary detail.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, this description is too thin. The verify parameter is undocumented, and the behavior on double-clicking non-interactive elements or invalid targets is absent, so the agent may misinvoke the tool.

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%. The phrase 'same flexible target rules as computer.click' gives some meaning for the target parameter by pointing to another tool, but the verify parameter is completely unexplained, and the target's actual format/behavior is not defined here.

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 action: 'Double-click a UI element', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like click and right_click through the 'double' qualifier, and references computer.click for target rules, reinforcing its role.

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 gives no guidance on when to use double_click versus click or other pointer tools. It only references target rules from computer.click, which is about parameter semantics, not usage context or exclusions.

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