move_cursor

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: bringing Floorp to foreground, aborting on failure, and moving the real OS cursor. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) are consistent with this behavior. The description adds valuable context about side effects and termination conditions.

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 sentences, front-loading the core purpose (move cursor to screen pixel) and immediately adding constraints. Every sentence is necessary and clear with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two params, no output schema), the description fully covers required context: Windows-only, Floorp window, foreground behavior, and abort conditions. An agent has sufficient information to decide when to invoke this tool.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described as 'Screen X (pixels)' and 'Screen Y (pixels)'. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, only clarifying they are screen pixel coordinates and constraints about Floorp window. With high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 moves the REAL OS cursor to a screen pixel within the Floorp window. It specifies the action (move), the resource (OS cursor), and the constraint (Floorp window). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like click or hover which perform different actions on the cursor.

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 description provides explicit constraints: Windows only, must be inside Floorp window, brings Floorp to foreground and aborts if not or if point is outside. This gives clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, though it avoids confusion by describing failure conditions.

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