qt_mouse_context_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry transparency. It adds useful behavioral detail about x/y coordinates (optional, relative to element, both-or-neither, default center). But it does not disclose broader behavior such as what happens after opening the menu, whether the call blocks, or any prerequisites for the element.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the purpose, and the second adds critical coordinate semantics. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 mouse action with an output schema available, the description covers core aspects: purpose and coordinate behavior. It does not discuss preconditions or interactions with other mouse tools, but given the tool's narrow scope and schema richness, this is adequately complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining x/y in detail: logical-pixel offsets relative to the element's top-left, both-or-neither semantic, and default to center. The other parameters (session_id, element_id) are conventional and their purpose is evident from the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: opening a context menu (right-click menu) at an element. This specific verb+resource combination immediately distinguishes it from sibling mouse action tools like qt_mouse_click, qt_mouse_dbl_click, or qt_mouse_press.

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 implies usage by specifying it is for the context menu, which is distinct from other mouse actions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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