simulate_mouse_move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one important behavior ("dropped if no game is running") and mentions optional motion delta and held-button mask. However, it does not explain what happens after the move, whether it is instantaneous, or any other side effects or dependencies.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action ("Move the mouse to viewport pixel x,y"), and packs necessary qualifiers (optional motion delta, held-button mask, dropped if no game) without excess wording.

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?

With six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: the meaning of 'unhandled' is undefined, the behavior for motion delta is vague, and there is no mention of return values, error handling, or how this interacts with other simulate_* tools. It provides some context, but not enough for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies x and y as viewport pixel coordinates, and references "motion delta" (likely relative_x/relative_y) and "held-button mask" (button_mask). However, it leaves 'unhandled' completely unexplained and the connection to relative_x/relative_y is ambiguous (motion delta could mean several things).

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 tool's purpose: "Move the mouse to viewport pixel x,y in the running game." It uses a specific verb (Move) and resource (mouse, viewport), and mentions optional motion delta and button mask. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like simulate_mouse_click, but the action (move vs click) is implied.

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?

The description implies usage context: it is for moving the mouse in a running game, and notes the event is dropped if no game is running. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like simulate_key or simulate_action, nor does it mention any preconditions or prerequisites.

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