triple_click

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses a genuinely useful behavioral trait by naming the allowlist gate and the resulting error-with-no-action failure mode. It still omits whether the action is reversible, timing/ordering behavior relative to other mouse tools, or what the error looks like.

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?

Three short sentences; the action is front-loaded, followed by the user-visible effect and then the precondition. Nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it does, the semantic effect, and the blocking precondition. No return-value explanation is required.

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 100%, with both coordinates and modifier-key syntax documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format or semantic detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ("Triple-click at the given coordinates") and adds the semantic outcome ("selects a line in most text editors"), which lets an agent differentiate it from double_click and left_click without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when the tool is the right one (selecting a line in text editors) and states a hard precondition (frontmost app must be in the allowlist). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives such as double_click for word selection or drag for range selection.

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