点击 VTable 单元格

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it performs a real mouse click via action_chain, triggers full hover/focus/selection behaviors, and auto-scrolls into view. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent anticipate side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and key behavioral details without redundancy. Every phrase adds value, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown) and annotations cover the read-only flag. The description explains the click mechanism and auto-scroll behavior. It does not mention prerequisites like an active table context or tab, but given the sibling suite and typical usage, it is largely complete for a click action.

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 only 43%, and the description does not add explanations for the undocumented parameters (col, row, tab_id, table_index). It mentions auto-scrolling, which relates to positioning, but does not clarify parameter formats or constraints. Since the schema does not document most parameters and the description does not compensate, 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 the action: clicking a VTable cell, with specifics on auto-scrolling and real mouse events. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vtable_hover_cell and vtable_click_icon by emphasizing real mouse movement and full hover/focus/selection behavior.

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 implies when to use this tool—when you need genuine mouse click behavior on a VTable cell rather than synthetic JS events. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context of siblings and the real-click emphasis provide adequate guidance.

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