computer_double_click

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It honestly describes the action and screen-relative coordinates, but does not disclose whether the pointer is moved first, whether this triggers OS-level side effects, or whether there are any time/order constraints. Adequate for a simple action, but minimal.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential action and target with maximum efficiency.

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 tool is simple, the input schema is complete, and an output schema exists, so not much is missing. However, the description lacks usage differentiation and behavioral context that would help an agent decide between this and sibling click/move tools. Complete enough to call, but not to select optimally.

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 100%, with x and y both described as coordinates in pixels. The description adds only the phrase 'screen coordinates,' which is marginal context; the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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 action ('Double-click') and the resource ('specified screen coordinates'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling computer_click, though the name and verb make the distinction reasonably clear.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus computer_click, computer_move, or other pointer tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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