dosbox_click

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

The description reveals multiple non-obvious behavioral details: the host pointer never moves, the mouse state must be rewritten continuously for duration, a single write usually loses to the game handler, and one click can advance two pages. These go well beyond the annotations and materially improve agent decision-making.

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: purpose, mechanism, timing behavior, and a cautionary alternative all appear in a few dense sentences without filler or repetition.

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?

Given the annotations cover safety and an output schema exists, the description provides the remaining critical context: what the tool actually alters, why duration is needed, and when to prefer a key. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly in most DOS game scenarios.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds real semantic value for duration_seconds by explaining why the duration exists and why a single write is insufficient, and 'guest screen coordinate' reinforces x/y meaning.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Click at a guest screen coordinate' and clarifies the unusual mechanism by writing the game's own mouse state. It clearly separates this from the other input tools in the sibling list, such as dosbox_send_keys and dosbox_hold_buttons.

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?

It gives useful context for using the tool and explicitly recommends 'send a key instead' for the 'click to continue' paging case. It does not offer a full when-to-use vs. when-to-avoid comparison across all sibling tools, but the guidance is concrete and actionable.

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