kvm_mouse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of explaining side effects. It mentions returning a post-action screenshot but does not disclose what happens when invalid or incomplete coordinate pairs are supplied, nor whether a device must be selected beforehand.

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 short and mostly to the point, with the key coordinate-pair requirement front-loaded. The trailing '(input tier)' fragment is somewhat unclear but does not add significant noise.

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 has eight parameters and no output schema, yet the description only addresses coordinate pairing and general mouse behavior. It omits parameter details, failure modes, and how this interacts with device selection, making it incomplete for reliable agent use.

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?

The description covers relative_x, relative_y, pixel_x, and pixel_y, but ignores button, clicks, wheel_x, and wheel_y. Since the schema has zero field descriptions, the omitted parameters remain unexplained, leaving significant semantic gaps.

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 that the tool moves, clicks, and scrolls the mouse, and it highlights that mouse input is a last resort compared to keyboard input. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the core action is specific enough.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on coordinate usage: pass both relative_x and relative_y, or both pixel_x and pixel_y. It also advises preferring keyboard input, but it does not explain when to choose relative vs. pixel coordinates or how wheel parameters should be used.

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