GhostDesk

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 effectively describes the action and return values (action description, screen change detection, reaction time), which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond basic parameters. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like UI changes or system interactions.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by detailed return value documentation. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the action and use cases, the subsequent lines describe the output format. 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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good behavioral context through return value documentation but completely neglects parameter explanations. The output details help compensate for missing schema, but parameter gaps remain significant.

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 doesn't explain any of the 5 parameters (from_x, from_y, to_x, to_y, button) beyond what the schema provides (titles and types). The description focuses on output semantics instead, leaving parameters undocumented.

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 action ('Drag from one position to another') and provides specific use cases ('selecting text, moving items, or resizing'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mouse_click or mouse_scroll. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from mouse_double_click in terms of dragging vs. double-clicking behavior.

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 for specific actions (selecting text, moving items, resizing) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mouse_click for single clicks or key_press for keyboard interactions. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned.

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