simulate_mouse_move

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only hints that the operation happens 'in the running project', but does not disclose side effects (e.g., triggering hover events), coordinate system, or behavior if the project is not running.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured for quick reading, though it sacrifices essential detail for brevity.

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 tool's simplicity (two numeric params, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It omits crucial context like coordinate system, whether the movement is absolute or relative, and any constraints on the running project state.

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 description does not explain the x and y parameters at all, leaving schema coverage at 0%. It does not specify whether they are absolute screen coordinates, relative offsets, or game-view coordinates, adding no value beyond the parameter names.

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's function with a specific verb ('simulate') and resource ('mouse movement'), and the phrase 'in the running project' adds context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like simulate_click and simulate_keyboard, which target different inputs.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., project running) or when not to use it, such as preferring simulate_click for clicks or simulate_keyboard for keys.

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