qt_mouse_click_at

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses that the click goes through the real Qt pipeline, that the hit test determines the target, and that it may trigger destructive side effects like menus or close buttons. It also warns about window_id expiry, adding important temporal context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by precise, high-value details. Every sentence adds necessary information without fluff. The structure is easy to scan, with coordinate semantics and window_id warnings clearly separated.

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?

Despite lacking annotations, the description is remarkably complete for a complex tool. It covers coordinate space, pipeline behavior, risk of destructive actions, and window_id lifecycle. Given an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed, and the tool's usage context is fully understood.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed semantics for x/y (client area, logical pixels, DPI handling) and window_id (recent snapshot, expiry, default behavior with 0). However, button and modifiers are left to schema defaults and are not explicitly explained, though their names and defaults make them reasonably clear.

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 the tool clicks at an exact window coordinate and emphasizes 'exactly like a real mouse click at that position.' This distinguishes it from sibling coordinate/region/element-based click tools, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need a pixel-exact click, with coordinates in the same space as screenshots and DPI handled internally. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the contrast with element-based clicks (via the real Qt input pipeline) strongly implies the usage boundary.

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