nanokvm_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It explains the click action and optional movement, but does not clarify whether coordinates are absolute or relative, nor does it mention prerequisites or side effects. Basic behavior is clear, but some behavioral context is missing.

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 concise, starting with the core purpose in one sentence, followed by a clear args list. No redundancy or filler; every sentence adds value.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers core functionality and parameter semantics well. The main gap is the ambiguous coordinate system, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Overall, it is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 compensates by explaining each parameter: button enum values, and x/y as optional coordinates to move to before clicking. It adds meaning beyond the schema (e.g., the optional move behavior), but lacks details on coordinate system/units.

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 clearly states 'Click a mouse button, optionally at a specific position' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_key (keyboard) and scroll by focusing on mouse click behavior.

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 implied (use when you need to click a mouse button) but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and description.

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