janela_clicar

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does add one important behavioral rule: dangerous actions are gated behind confirmado=true and user consent. It does not say what happens when confirmado is false for such an action (refusal, error, no-op), nor does it state that the click mutates UI state, what window matching behavior is, or whether a click failure is reported.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then the safety rule; nothing is padded. It is under-specified rather than verbose, which is the right failure mode for conciseness but leaves gaps elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a UI-automation click with destructive potential and zero annotation coverage, the definition leaves the required 'titulo' parameter and the choice among three sibling click tools unaddressed — an agent could invoke it on the wrong surface or with an unset window target.

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%, so the description must compensate for three bare parameters. It explains 'alvo' (reading number or control name) and 'confirmado' (required for destructive actions), but 'titulo' — presumably the target window identifier and required — is never mentioned, leaving a required parameter entirely undefined.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Clica num controle da janela') and even explains how the target is addressed — by reading number or by control name, with a concrete example ('Salvar'). It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling click tools navegador_clicar and tela_clicar, which an agent must choose between.

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 real conditional guidance: destructive actions ('enviar, apagar, pagar etc.') require confirmado=true and explicit user approval, which tells the agent when to set that flag. Missing is any guidance on which surface to click on — window vs browser vs screen — or a prerequisite pointing at janela_ler as the source of the reading number it references.

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