calibrate_mouse

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

The description discloses significant behavioral traits: visible cursor movement for 10-30s, gated like HID input requiring approval, pointer moves only, and persistence/staleness per host and resolution. This goes well beyond the sparse annotations.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then adding essential behavioral, prerequisite, and postcondition details. Every sentence adds value, and the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 description covers purpose, behavior, preconditions, side effects, and persistence thoroughly. However, it omits any mention of return values, and the parameter semantics are absent, which leaves a gap for a tool with no output schema.

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?

The schema has zero coverage (no descriptions) and the tool description does not mention any of the three parameters (confirm, profile, tolerance). The description fails to explain their purpose, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance for parameter selection.

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 tool's function: 'Measure and store this host's mouse commanded→observed correction' and explains the problem it solves ('clicks where the button should be and misses'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mouse' by emphasizing calibration rather than direct input.

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?

Explicit preconditions are provided (live video, static screen, visible cursor, Pillow) and the effect on subsequent mouse coordinates is described ('Afterwards mouse percent coords apply it transparently'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context makes the ideal usage clear.

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