geck_click_at

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only reveals the relative-to-window default. It does not disclose focus requirements, whether it moves the mouse or dispatches events, targeting via handle/title_regex, or 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 with no filler. It is not richly structured, but every word contributes; the main loss is from missing guidance, not wordiness.

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 an 8-parameter automation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, this one-liner is under-specified. Even though an output schema exists, the action's targeting, button, and backend behavior remain unexplained.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies that x/y are window-relative coordinates by default. The other six parameters, such as button, double, handle, backend, and title_regex, receive no semantic explanation beyond their names.

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 verb 'Click' plus object 'coordinates' gives a clear action and target, and 'window-relative by default' defines the coordinate frame. It does not explicitly name geck_click_control, but the focus on raw coordinates rather than UI controls provides some sibling differentiation.

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 this is for coordinate-based clicking, especially when you have x/y positions, rather than control-based clicking. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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