mouse_down

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: no mention of whether this dispatches a low-level event, whether a release is required, or whether state persists. "Mouse press (alias)" adds no behavioral context at all.

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 words plus a qualifier is technically short, but the parenthetical "(alias)" is noise rather than signal, and the brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 mutation-style input tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the definition is completely inadequate. An agent has no basis for calling it correctly or knowing its relationship to mouse_up.

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%, and the description never mentions the button parameter or its left/right/middle options. The enum is self-explanatory, which is the only reason this is not a 1, but the description compensates for none of the coverage gap.

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?

"Mouse press" does convey a verb and resource, but the parenthetical "(alias)" is unexplained and leaves the agent unsure whether this is the primary operation or a synonym of another tool. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as mouse_up, mouse, or click.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus mouse_up, mouse, hover, or click, and no indication of the prerequisite that a matching mouse_up must follow. The agent must infer all usage context.

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