click_text

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral details; it does disclose OCR-based lookup and window focusing before clicking. However, it does not explain behavior when text is not found, how region/monitor constrain the search, or whether the click is immediate.

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 short and front-loads the core action, with the window-focus detail in a second clause. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity leaves behavior and parameters underspecified.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, a one-sentence description is insufficient. The output schema may cover return values, but the meanings of scope, region, occurrence, button, and double are unexplained, leaving important invariants unclear.

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% and the description only adds semantics for window ('focusing window first'). The other seven parameters (target, region, monitor, occurrence, button, double, scope) receive no explanatory value beyond their names.

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?

States a specific verb ('click'), method ('OCR-find'), and target ('text'), plus the window-focus precondition. This clearly distinguishes it from coordinate-based mouse_click and from find_text_on_screen, which only locates text.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, despite siblings like mouse_click and find_text_on_screen occupying adjacent roles. The only implied context is the tool's name and the phrase 'OCR-find text and click it.'

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