computer_move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the no-click behavior and screen-pixel units, but it omits coordinate origin, whether movement is absolute or relative, permission requirements, and any effect on the actual cursor beyond a generic 'JSON response' return note.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a tight parameter list, and a returns line. There is no redundant or irrelevant prose.

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 is simple and all parameters are described, but the description leaves notable gaps: it does not state the coordinate origin (e.g., top-left), does not mention querying computer_screen_size for bounds, and does not address permission prerequisites or error behavior. The existing output schema mitigates the need to explain return values.

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%, and the description compensates thoroughly: serialno is tied to list_devices, and x/y are explicitly defined as screen-pixel coordinates. This adds meaningful units and provenance that the raw schema does not provide.

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 a specific action: move the mouse without clicking. The 'without clicking' phrase helps distinguish it from click/drag siblings, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as computer_drag or computer_position, so differentiation is partial.

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 tool rather than alternatives. It does not mention computer_drag, computer_scroll, computer_position, or any prerequisites beyond sourcing serialno from list_devices, leaving the selection to inference.

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