Triple Click

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

Annotations already signal destructive/read-write behavior, so there is no contradiction, but the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not explain how 'bound' targets are resolved, what happens on failure, or what side effects a triple-click may trigger. The agent learns nothing beyond the fact that a triple click will be performed.

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?

At one short sentence, the description is compact and front-loads the action and target type. There is no filler or repeated enumeration. The brevity is appropriate for the dimension, even if other dimensions lack information.

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?

Despite the schema exposing parameter metadata, the description alone is not enough to select this tool confidently among several click variants. Missing usage context, target-binding semantics, and behavioral side effects mean an agent cannot fully judge when to invoke it. The schema/annotation richness does not compensate for this absence.

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 description contributes no parameter semantics; it only restates the target concept already represented in the schema. The schema itself covers 60% of parameters, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented 'app_ref' or otherwise clarify parameter relationships. The baseline of 3 only applies with high schema coverage, which is not the case here.

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 names a concrete action ('Triple-click') and a target class ('a bound element or frame coordinate'), so an agent knows what the tool does at a high level. It is not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling click tools, and the phrase 'bound element' is jargon that is not explained.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. With siblings like 'double_click', 'left_click', 'right_click', and 'middle_click' available, the agent is left to infer triple-click is for three-click interactions solely from the name. No exclusions or preferred conditions are provided.

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