da_double_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive-ish action (double-click) and the optional move-to-first behavior, but doesn't disclose what the move behavior implies (e.g., does it click at current position if no x/y given?), return values, or whether coordinates are required. For a mouse-input tool, more behavioral detail would help.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The description front-loads the primary action and adds the coordinate behavior succinctly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-coordinate mouse action with no output schema, this is reasonably complete. However, the description is thin on edge cases (e.g., coordinate range behavior, what happens when no x/y supplied). Given the tool's simplicity and clear schema, it's adequate but has room to add a brief usage note.

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%, but the description notes that x/y are used for moving before double-clicking. With only 2 optional integer coordinates whose meaning is self-evident (position), and the description adding the 'moves first' behavioral note, this provides baseline useful semantics. It doesn't detail coordinate interpretation beyond that.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Double-click the left mouse button') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like da_click (single click). The optional coordinate movement is noted. However, it doesn't explicitly frame the use case (e.g., launching an app or selecting), but the purpose is adequately clear for a mouse-action tool.

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 implies usage (double-click at a location) but provides no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. It doesn't explicitly contrast with da_click, da_drag, or other siblings. No prerequisites or context are given, though the sibling set makes the distinction fairly intuitive.

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