mouse_move_to

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important side effect: a screenshot is taken automatically if none exists yet. It omits what happens on out-of-bounds coordinates, whether the move is awaited, and whether the auto-screenshot is returned.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the coordinate-frame caveat and the auto-screenshot behavior are both front-loaded where an agent will read them.

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 two-parameter input tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: coordinate frame and the implicit screenshot side effect. Minor gaps remain around boundary behavior and whether the auto-screenshot is returned, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines both x and y as pixel coordinates with (0,0) at the top-left of the most recent screenshot. It adds nothing about the 0–19999 range or behavior at edges, but the coordinate-frame explanation is the key semantic an agent needs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move the pointer to (x, y)') plus the coordinate frame, so the absolute-positioning intent is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling `mouse_move`, leaving the agent to infer the absolute-vs-relative distinction.

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 implies usage by tying coordinates to 'the most recent screenshot', which tells the agent to screenshot first. However, it never names `mouse_move` as the relative alternative or states when not to use this tool, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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