kasm_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the coordinate frame dependency but says nothing about what a click does to the remote session, whether it is destructive, how button defaults are chosen, or how double-click timing is handled.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the most important constraint (which coordinate space) is stated immediately.

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 5-parameter click tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core coordinate semantics but omits button/double-click behavior and session targeting, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 only 20% (only session_id is documented). The description adds real meaning for x/y by tying them to the kasm_look image coordinate space, but the button enum, the double flag, and the session-omission behavior are left entirely unexplained in both description and schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Click) and the exact coordinate reference frame (the latest kasm_look image), which differentiates it from kasm_type, kasm_key and kasm_scroll. However it doesn't explicitly state it acts on a remote Kasm session, so full sibling disambiguation relies on the name prefix.

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 phrase 'coordinate space of the latest kasm_look image' implies the prerequisite that kasm_look must be called first, which is useful implicit guidance. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over kasm_scroll or kasm_key, and no exclusions or conditions.

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