desktop_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool does not click and has low side effects, and that verify can screenshot-compare UI changes, but it omits coordinate system, permissions, return behavior, and failure modes.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted text. The parenthetical '不点击' is high-value clarification.

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 mouse-move tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic action and verify option. However, it leaves important gaps around coordinate semantics and what verify returns or does, so it is only minimally complete.

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 only 33%, and the x/y parameters have no schema descriptions. The description says only '指定坐标' without explaining origin, units, or screen/window coordinates. The verify parameter is already described in the schema, and the description adds usage context rather than deeper semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: '移动鼠标到指定坐标' and explicitly clarifies '不点击'. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like desktop_click, so an agent can immediately tell what the tool does.

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 gives concrete usage contexts: '可用于定位或配合 verify 观察界面反应'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use is clear enough.

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