click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It adds useful behavior context: clicking at specified coordinates, fallback to current cursor when x/y omitted, and coordinate alignment with screenshots. However, it omits behavioral details like default button, click count behavior, or side effects, so it is only partially transparent.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence conveys the core action and parameters, and the second clarifies coordinate alignment. Every sentence earns its place; concision is excellent.

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?

The tool has four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides only x/y behavior and coordinate system context. It does not address button options, click counts, defaults, or potential effects, leaving the tool under-specified for robust use by an agent.

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 must compensate. It explains x and y semantics (coordinates and optional omission) but completely ignores 'button' and 'clicks', leaving those parameter meanings to be inferred from the schema alone. This is insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 the tool performs a click at screen coordinates or current cursor, with a specific verb ('click') and resource ('screen points'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like mouse_move and mouse_drag by clarifying the click action and coordinate system.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mouse_move, mouse_drag, or scroll. It implies usage through the verb 'click' but does not provide context, exclusions, or mention scenarios where the click tool is preferred.

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