Click Mouse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully specifies the left button and the success/error return shape, but omits important context such as irreversibility/side effects of clicking, required screen state, or modifier-key behavior.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the example is compact. The Returns block duplicates the existing output schema, which is mild redundancy but not harmful.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core action and gives an example call. It is largely complete, though it could say more about preconditions (cursor already positioned) and when to prefer this over sibling actions.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify. The empty schema is consistent with the parameterless call shown in the example.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Simulate left mouse click at current position," which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from siblings like move_mouse or drag_mouse, though the "at current position" phrasing hints at the distinction.

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 is only implied: "at current position" suggests a prior move_mouse call is needed, but the description never states when to use this versus drag_mouse or execute_action. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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