mouse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses meaningful traits: physical-pixel coordinates, optional current-position click, and negative clicks for downward scroll. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., moving the actual system cursor, affecting other applications), permissions, or reversibility. Some behavioral info is present, but gaps remain.

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 only three short sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then compactly enumerating action semantics. Every phrase earns its place, using terse notation that is easy to scan. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that likely documents return values. The description covers the most important parameter semantics but omits button and duration, and does not explain the effect of each action beyond coordinate mechanics. It is adequate for basic use but not complete for all parameters and possible edge cases.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of action values, x/y as click coordinates (optional), x1/y1 for drag start, and clicks for scroll amount. It does not describe the button or duration parameters, leaving parts of the parameter space undocumented. Still, it adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states 'Control the mouse' and lists the supported actions (move, click, scroll, drag, down, up), giving a clear verb+resource statement. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the action list makes it self-evident compared to keyboard, screenshot, or window controls.

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 no guidance on when to use the mouse tool versus alternatives like keyboard or screenshot. It explains how to perform specific actions (e.g., 'click uses x,y', 'scroll uses clicks'), but not when this tool should be preferred or avoided. There is no mention of context or exclusions.

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