点击 VTable 图标

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

Beyond the annotation readOnlyHint: false (write action), the description adds that icons are discovered via VTable scenegraph and clicked with real mouse at viewport-absolute coordinates. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., triggering sort/filter toggles) or whether it waits for resulting UI changes. Some transparency is present but not comprehensive.

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, concise and front-loaded with the action. It lists examples and explains the mechanism without extraneous detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 conveys what the tool does and how icons are located, but omits information about return values (despite having an output schema), error handling, or post-click behavior. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but lacks completeness for a tool that can trigger dynamic UI changes.

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 33% (name and index have descriptions; col, row, tab_id, table_index do not). The description does not compensate by explaining what col and row refer to (e.g., zero-based cell coordinates) or the roles of tab_id and table_index. Although the scenegraph mention hints at coordinate usage, it leaves critical parameters underdocumented.

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 (click interactive icons) and the target (icons inside cells/headers), with concrete examples like sort arrows, filter funnels, checkboxes, and expand/collapse. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool vtable_click_cell by explicitly focusing on icons rather than cell bodies.

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 usage when needing to interact with icons, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like vtable_click_cell. There is no exclusion of cases (e.g., 'prefer this over clicking the cell body'), so guidance is merely implied rather than explicit.

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