vision_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the LLM dependency and the fallback scenario, but does not explain what happens on failure (e.g., if the element isn't found or confidence is low), nor does it note that clicking is a mutating action. It provides adequate but not rich disclosure.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds fallback context and a requirement. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to scan.

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 description lacks mention of return values or behavior when the click fails or confidence is below threshold, which an agent might need to know. Since there is no output schema, the description should cover these aspects. It is adequate for a simple click tool but leaves some gaps.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides—it only restates the 'intent' parameter's purpose. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (find and click) and the resource (UI element), and specifies the mechanism (via Claude vision). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'click' by noting it's a fallback for AX-tree failures, making it specific and non-confusable.

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 explicitly mentions it is a fallback for canvas/Flutter/Unity pages where the AX-tree fails, which gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'click' for normal pages, so the exclusion is implied rather than stated.

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