マウス操作

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does add key behavioral details: move is relative, the coordinate scale is defined (1920x1080, twice screenshot coordinates), and a workaround for absolute positioning is shown with an example. It stops short of describing click/scroll side effects, but the core behavior is 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?

Three dense Japanese sentences with no filler: the core operation, coordinate semantics, an absolute-positioning trick, and a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough: it covers the action enum behavior, coordinate system, absolute positioning, and a triggering scenario. The remaining details are already present in the input 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that dx/dy are relative movements and providing the coordinate conversion and absolute-positioning example. This materially helps the agent use dx/dy correctly.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'TV のマウスポインタを操作する' and covers move, click, and scroll via action enum. It clearly differentiates from sibling keyboard/text tools like send_key and insert_text by describing mouse-specific behavior and the virtual-keyboard use case.

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 gives a clear use case: 'ブラウザ等でテキスト欄をクリックして仮想キーボードを出すときに使う' and explains the relative-move behavior needed for absolute positioning. It does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, but the context is explicit enough for selecting this tool.

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