nanokvm_move_relative

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: relative HID reports and splitting of deltas larger than one signed byte. It also explains why absolute moves fail on certain targets. No safety or auth concerns are noted, but none are expected for a mouse-move operation.

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?

Description is front-loaded with its core purpose, followed by usage guidance, a behavior note, and an args list. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy - clear, concise, and well-organized.

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?

Given no annotations and minimal schema, the description is thoroughly complete: it covers the purpose, when to use vs. alternatives, parameter semantics, and a performance/behavior edge case. The presence of an output schema covers return values, so no additional explanation is needed.

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 provides only titles with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by defining both parameters: 'dx: Horizontal delta in pixels, negative is left' and 'dy: Vertical delta in pixels, negative is up', plus the behavioral note about large deltas being split - adding meaning beyond the raw integer type.

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?

States 'Move mouse cursor by a relative delta, rather than to an absolute position' with a specific verb and resource, explicitly distinguishing it from nanokvm_move's absolute-coordinate approach. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use this when nanokvm_move() has no visible effect' and identifies target scenarios (embedded firmware with relative USB mouse), providing clear when-to-use guidance and naming the alternative.

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