glass_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 only the basic action and window-relative coordinate system, but does not state whether the movement is instantaneous, whether it modifies system cursor state, what happens with out-of-bounds coordinates, or whether a window context is required.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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 tool this might seem adequate, but the lack of annotations, no output schema, and missing usage context (e.g., need for an active window, whether movement is relative to last known window) make it incomplete. The description assumes prior context that isn't stated.

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 100%, and the parameter descriptions already explain the window-relative semantics. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate – schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action (move the pointer) and the resource (pointer) with a specific scope (window-relative coordinates). It is distinct from sibling tools like glass_click and glass_drag, though it doesn't explicitly mention that no clicking occurs.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., selecting a window first) or that it's for moving without clicking. The description leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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