mouse_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it injects a listener, captures mousemove events, and returns a JSON array of {t,x,y}. It also claims 'highest-stealth behavioral pattern (indistinguishable from human),' which adds transparency about its behavioral impact. However, it doesn't mention if the listener is removed after recording or potential side effects on page performance.

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 concise, using only three sentences and a bullet for return format. It front-loads the key purpose with a star rating for emphasis. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, simple return type), the description covers the main aspects: what it does, how to use it (move mouse naturally), and what it returns. It could mention whether the recording auto-stops or if the listener is cleaned up, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the 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?

The schema coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter description in the schema. The description mentions 'during duration,' which implies the duration_seconds parameter controls recording time. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description does not elaborate on format, range, or edge cases. This adds minimal value beyond the parameter name.

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 records real mouse movements for later replay, distinguishing it from siblings like mouse_replay, mouse_move, etc. It specifies the action (record), resource (mouse movements), and purpose (replay via mouse_replay).

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 explains when to use the tool (to record natural mouse movements) and mentions the alternative mouse_replay for playback. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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