mouse_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the coordinate system (logical points, origin top-left), fallback to current cursor when coordinates are omitted, and the need to derive coordinates from screenshot metadata. It also advises verification. However, it omits details about modifier handling, clamp behavior, button semantics, and require_fresh_screenshot.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by coordinate system clarification and verification advice. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core click action and coordinate system but leaves many parameters and return behavior unexplained. It provides enough for basic usage but not full contextual completeness given the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains x and y (coordinate meaning and origin) and that omitting them clicks at the current cursor, but provides no explanation for clamp, count, button, modifiers, or require_fresh_screenshot. With 7 parameters and 5 unexplained, parameter semantics is weak.

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 ('Click at (x, y), or at the current cursor if omitted') and identifies the resource (mouse). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mouse_move and mouse_drag by specifying click behavior and coordinate semantics.

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?

It provides practical usage context by explaining coordinate computation from screenshot metadata and recommending a post-click screenshot verification. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like mouse_move or mouse_drag, nor state when not to use this tool.

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