thunder_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the click uses a Bezier mouse path and human timing, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not state whether the click is destructive, whether it waits for navigation, how failures are handled, or what permissions are needed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: it states the action first and adds the human-like behavior parenthetically. It is efficient, though the parenthetical could be slightly clearer about whether it applies to all clicks.

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 tool with one required parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It explains the human-like click behavior but omits selector semantics, side effects, usage context relative to many siblings, and failure behavior, leaving key information missing.

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 one required parameter, 'selector', with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description never mentions the selector, its format, what it targets, or how it is resolved, leaving the only parameter undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 and action: 'Click like a human', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like thunder_type, thunder_read, or thunder_scroll. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from closer alternatives such as thunder_open, but the core purpose is clear.

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 tool versus alternatives such as thunder_open or thunder_type, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer its usage context solely from the tool name and one-line description.

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