mouse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether x/y are absolute coordinates, whether missing coordinates reuse the current cursor position, what the default button is, or whether steps animates movement. All of this must be inferred from the schema alone.

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?

It is short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy. The single fragment is front-loaded but conveys almost no actionable content.

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 input tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two enums, the definition is completely inadequate. An agent cannot call this correctly without guessing at coordinate semantics, defaults, and the distinction from sibling mouse tools.

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?

Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. The action enum restated in prose duplicates the schema verbatim, while x, y, steps, and button remain completely undocumented in both places.

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 essentially restates the tool name: 'mouse' becomes 'Mouse operation'. Listing the action values (move/down/up/click) adds a little specificity, but it only mirrors the schema enum and gives no indication of what makes this tool distinct from overlapping siblings such as click, move_mouse, mouse_down, and mouse_up.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the closely-related siblings. An agent has no basis for choosing this tool over click or move_mouse for the same operations.

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