computer_click

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only warns 'high caution' but does not explain what the click does (e.g., move cursor, trigger events), whether it requires a visible screen, or any side effects. The confirmed parameter suggests a safety mechanism but is not described.

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 (4 words) and front-loaded with the key action and a warning. However, it sacrifices clarity and completeness for brevity. Every word earns its place, but more detail is needed.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain how to specify coordinates, the role of optional parameters, or what the return value is. The 'high caution' label is insufficient for safe usage.

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 description coverage is only 20% (only confirmed has a description). The tool description adds no information about parameters like x, y, url, or tabId. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which are insufficient for correct usage.

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 'Click screen coordinates (high caution)' clearly states the action (click) and resource (screen coordinates). It distinguishes from sibling tools (computer_type and browser_wait_for) which involve typing and waiting, respectively. However, it could be more explicit about the context (e.g., mouse click on a GUI).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description lacks any indication of prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or when to avoid using it. The 'high caution' warning hints at care but does not provide concrete usage advice.

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