tela_clicar

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the search spans every window and the taskbar, but says nothing about what happens on no-match or on multiple matches, whether it needs an unlocked GUI session, or what side effects result from an accidental click on a similarly named control.

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 with the scope stated first and the matching-performance tip second; nothing is padded. The trailing example is slightly noisy but earns its place by showing the real taskbar caption format.

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, but for a desktop-automation click tool the definition omits failure modes, ambiguity handling, and half of the parameter surface ("confirmado"). An agent cannot tell what happens when several windows expose the same button label.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It adds meaning for "alvo" via the exact-name preference, but "confirmado" is never mentioned at all — its name suggests a confirmation gate whose effect on execution is entirely undocumented.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ("Clica em qualquer botão visível pelo nome") plus the search scope ("procurando em todas as janelas e na barra de tarefas"), with a concrete example. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the window- and browser-scoped siblings (janela_clicar, navegador_clicar) by claiming a whole-desktop search, but never names them.

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 all-windows scope implies when to reach for this over a window-specific click, and "Nome exato é bem mais rápido" hints at an alternative matching strategy, but the agent must infer both. No sibling is named and no exclusion (e.g. "prefira janela_clicar quando sabe a janela") is given.

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