mouse_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (click) without any details on side effects, required permissions, or behavior when coordinates are out of bounds. This is insufficient for a mutation 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 very concise (one sentence), but it is under-specified for a tool with 2 required parameters and no sibling differentiation. While brevity is valued, it sacrifices necessary detail, resulting in a moderate score of 3.

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 presence of many sibling click-related tools and an output schema not described, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about coordinate system, click behavior, return values, and interaction with the page state. A score of 2 reflects this gap.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond 'specific coordinates', failing to explain the coordinate system (e.g., viewport vs screen), units, or behavior at invalid positions. Most of the parameter understanding is left to guesswork.

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 'Click at specific coordinates.' clearly states the verb (click) and resource (specific coordinates), but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'click' or 'human_click'. Without sibling differentiation, it meets the criteria for a score of 4.

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 (e.g., 'click' for element-based clicks, 'human_click' for simulated clicks). It lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusions, resulting in a score of 2.

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