mouse_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only that coordinates are in screenshot space. It says nothing about side effects (hover triggers, focus changes), whether the move is instantaneous or animated, permission requirements, or return behavior.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key scoping detail ('in screenshot space') placed where it is read, and 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 simple two-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is close to sufficient, but the coordinate frame is only loosely pinned down (no origin, no relation to screenshot resolution). An agent could call it but might mis-target if the screenshot was scaled.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it does define both x and y as coordinates in screenshot space, which is real added meaning. However it omits origin corner, units, and whether values relate to the screenshot's pixel dimensions or the live screen, leaving the semantics partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move the mouse cursor') plus the coordinate target, and adds the important qualifier 'in screenshot space'. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like click_mark or left_click that also position the cursor, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as click_mark, left_click, or ax_activate, and no stated prerequisites. The reader must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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