navvi_mousedown

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

The description discloses the primary action of pressing the mouse button. Without annotations, it carries the full burden and does well but lacks details on side effects like whether the press is atomic or if it can be used without a corresponding mouseup. Still, it is clear enough for a simple action.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant words, and information is front-loaded. Every sentence provides value.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple tool with an output schema, but it fails to explain the optional 'persona' parameter. Given the low parameter coverage, more detail about the parameters is needed for completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters. It only mentions '(x, y)' in context but does not describe the 'persona' parameter or the meaning of x and y beyond coordinates. This is a significant 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?

The description clearly states it presses the mouse button at a given coordinate using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'navvi_mouseup' and 'navvi_hold' by explaining when to use each, preventing confusion.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for manual hold control in pair with navvi_mouseup) and when to use an alternative (navvi_hold for simple press-and-hold). This clearly differentiates usage scenarios.

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