vtable_cell_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden — and it delivers substantially. It reveals the synthetic-but-trusted input pipeline (isTrusted=true), the scroll-to-viewport and deterministic-center-point mechanism, read-back verification of selection/editor state, automatic retry on miss, and the observe_after overlay-listening behavior across the main page and all iframes. Gaps are minor: it does not state side effects when a trusted click navigates or opens an editor, but the verification step partially covers this.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action before the procedural detail. The flow is encoded as a dense parenthetical chain (绑定实例 → 滚动 → 取中心点 → 点击 → 验证 → 重试) that earns each element, and the observe_after behavior gets its own sentence. It is information-dense rather than bloated, though the long chain requires careful parsing.

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?

For a complex 8-parameter tool with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the core workflow remarkably well and the output schema covers return values. However, half the parameters (button, settle_ms, max_results, double_click) lack any guidance, prerequisites beyond '绑定实例' are not elaborated, and failure retry behavior is only mentioned in passing. The tool is usable but an agent would still guess on several inputs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning: the (col/row,0起) coordinate system, the verify behavior via '回读选中区间/编辑器状态验证', and a thorough explanation of observe_after. However, button, settle_ms, max_results, and double_click remain completely unexplained — settle_ms and max_results in particular are opaque without context. Compensation is partial, roughly half the parameters.

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+resource: '点击 VTable 指定单元格(col/row,0 起)' — clicking a designated VTable cell by 0-based col/row coordinates. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling vtable_cell_click_by_field (field-based) and generic ui_click, though it never explicitly names those alternatives. The core purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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?

Usage context is only implied through the detailed pipeline (bound instance → scroll to viewport → deterministic center point → trusted click → verify → retry) and the observe_after conditional. It signals this tool is for reliable, verified VTable interactions, but never states when to prefer it over vtable_cell_click_by_field, vtable_cell_resolve, or ui_click, and gives no exclusions. The conditional 'observe_after=True 时' is the only explicit selection guidance and concerns a mode, not tool choice.

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