renforge_click_at

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional frame/state safety guards' which hints at conditional behavior, but it does not explain what happens when a guard fails, whether the click is suppressed or errors, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an action tool.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 6 parameters and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the coordinate_space semantics, the behavior of safety guards, or how the tool integrates with the rest of the workflow. The output schema exists but is not referenced, and the description alone does not enable a confident invocation.

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. It only adds meaning through the phrase 'screen coordinates' for x/y and 'frame/state safety guards' for expected_frame_id/expected_state. It does not explain coordinate_space, project_path, or any other parameter. The compensation is inadequate.

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 clicks screen coordinates, which is a specific action on a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like renforge_click_element by emphasizing raw screen coordinates, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where coordinate-based clicking is preferred over element-based tools, nor does it indicate when the safety guards are necessary. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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