double_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It directly discloses that two left-clicks are sent rapidly, which is meaningful beyond the tool name. It does not mention possible side effects of double-clicking, but for a low-level input tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and adds the key behavioral detail 'two rapid left-clicks' without 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and minimal schema descriptions, the description is too thin to fully guide an agent on optional x/y usage. The output schema covers return-value concerns, but the input semantics for coordinates and defaults are left unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 only 25%, with only pid documented. The description mentions 'widget' but gives no meaning for x/y, no guidance on whether they are widget-relative or screen coordinates, and no explanation of how omitted values behave. It does not compensate for the sparse schema documentation.

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 identifies the action ('Double-click a widget') and specifies the mechanism ('Sends two rapid left-clicks'), which distinguishes it from the sibling single-click tool even without naming it. It is specific but does not explicitly call out sibling differentiation or edge cases.

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?

The phrase 'Sends two rapid left-clicks' implies this tool is for double-click interactions, and the sibling list includes 'click' as an obvious alternative. However, the description does not state when to use double_click versus click, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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