ui_right_click

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint: false, so the description bears the burden of disclosure. It mentions cached coordinates and fallback search, and alerts about breakpoints. However, it does not describe failure modes, success criteria, or whether the tool interacts with the UI state (e.g., opening context menus) beyond the click.

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 fairly concise but structurally flawed: it mixes a usage note with a partial parameter list. The arg section is incomplete (missing two params) and uses bullet-like formatting. Could be more streamlined.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain element identification logic, behavior on multiple matches, or return value. The breakpoint note is helpful but not enough to make the tool well-documented.

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 lists only 3 of 5 parameters (automation_id, name, control_type) and merely repeats their property names without explaining how to use them (e.g., which are required, how they interact). Parameters root_id and xpath are omitted entirely.

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 'Right-click on a UI element to open context menu,' which conveys the core action and result. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ui_click or ui_double_click, which limits clarity when choosing among them.

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 provides a behavior note (caching and fallback) and a prerequisite (resume if stopped at breakpoint). But it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other click variants, nor does it mention any restrictions or best practices.

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