computer_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool clicks, specifies the default button behavior, and notes that it returns a JSON response. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether the cursor moves, focus requirements, or if the action is blocking). For a simple click, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently lists parameters and returns. It has no redundant wording and every sentence contributes to usability.

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 operation, the description is largely complete. It specifies parameters, defaults, and return type. It does not explicitly state the coordinate system origin (though 'absolute screen coordinates' implies standard top-left), and it does not discuss error handling. Given the tool's low complexity and the presence of an output schema, this is nearly complete.

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?

Every parameter is explicitly explained: serialno is described as coming from list_devices, x and y are specified as screen pixels, and button lists allowed values and its default. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, which only provides types and titles. The description fully covers all parameters, compensating for any lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 ('Click') and the resource ('absolute screen coordinates'). It is distinct from sibling tools like computer_double_click and computer_move, making it immediately clear what this tool does and what it does not do.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as computer_double_click or computer_long_click. It does not state any prerequisites (e.g., needing an active device) or mention exclusions. The only contextual hint is 'from list_devices' for the serialno parameter, but that is not an explicit usage guideline.

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