boxes.mouse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the transport and that a mouse action is sent. It does not describe side effects, the meaning of 'auto' backend selection, coordinate-space semantics, or the constraints around deltas and dimensions.

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 one short sentence with no filler, and the transport mechanism is front-loaded. It is concise rather than bloated, though it is terse enough to omit important context.

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?

This is a complex tool with 11 parameters, multiple oneOf action shapes, and no annotations or output schema, yet the description supplies almost no contextual information. Even with the schema, the roles of width/height, normalized versus pixel coordinates, and backend 'auto' behavior remain unclear.

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 description adds minimal hints about the backend ('SPICE or QMP') and the action concept, but it provides no meaning for x/y, width/height, coordinateSpace, button, or deltaX/deltaY. Since schema description coverage is only 9%, the description does not compensate for the parameter semantics gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and identifies the resource ('mouse action') and transport ('through SPICE or QMP'), which distinguishes it from sibling input tools like boxes.keyboard or boxes.clipboard. The word 'typed' is slightly ambiguous, and the description does not explicitly say the target is a domain/VM, but the overall meaning is 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. It does not mention the backend options, coordinate-space choices, or any exclusions, so an agent must infer usage from the schema alone.

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