glass_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that modifiers are held during the action and that count enables multi-clicks, which adds value. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors such as whether the window needs focus, what happens if coordinates are out of bounds, or whether there is any waiting/error handling. This is a gap for a mutating input action, though the core options are covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes concrete examples for modifiers. Every word earns its place, and the formatting of button/count/modifiers is scannable. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simplicity of the tool (5 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description plus schema cover all essential aspects: coordinates, button selection, count, and modifiers. It does not need to explain return values since there is no output schema. Minor gaps like focus requirements are behavioral rather than contextual, so the description is sufficiently complete for this tool.

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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all five parameters, including defaults and examples. The description paraphrases button values and modifier usage without adding new meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Click at window-relative coordinates.' This precisely identifies the tool's action and scope, and distinguishes it from the sibling glass_click_element, which clicks an element rather than raw coordinates. The mention of button and count further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 clearly states the coordinate system (window-relative), which implies when to use this tool—when you have window coordinates. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like glass_click_element or provide exclusion criteria (e.g., 'use click_element for element-based clicks'). The context is clear but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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