click

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the mechanism (CGEvent) and scope (coordinates or element center). However, it omits details about side effects (e.g., mouse movement, permission requirements) and the behavior of parameters like coordinate_space or confirm_risk_action.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. No unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain coordinate_space (e.g., screen vs window coordinates), confirm_risk_action's purpose, or the effect of click_count. The agent may misinterpret usage.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description must compensate but only mentions x, y, and element_index. It does not explain app, click_count, display_index, coordinate_space, or confirm_risk_action, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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?

Description clearly states the tool clicks on screen coordinates or an accessibility element using CGEvent. It explicitly mentions using element_index from get_app_state, distinguishing it from siblings like drag or press_key.

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 a clear usage hint: 'Use element_index from get_app_state when possible.' This guides the agent to prefer element indices for reliability. However, it does not specify when to avoid using this tool or mention alternatives beyond a single sibling reference.

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