smart_move

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that desktop mode uses accessible controls or D1 vision with the real OS pointer, browser mode moves both the tab mouse and real OS pointer, and that movement is blocked on low confidence or stale targets. It does not cover permission requirements or side effects of pointer movement, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and mode-specific behavior following. Every sentence adds relevant information without redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. For a pointer-movement tool with no annotations, the description covers mode behaviors and the low-confidence/stale-target guard sufficiently; only permission or pointer-state side effects are missing, which is minor.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It gives useful context for the mode enum by describing desktop vs browser behavior, but leaves target_description's expected format and matching semantics vague ('described target'). This partially compensates but leaves a clear gap.

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 states a specific action ('move/hover without clicking') and resource ('described target'), clearly distinguishing it from click-oriented siblings like smart_click and mouse_click. Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit, but the no-click constraint is stated.

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 explains the difference between desktop and browser modes, which guides mode selection, and notes that low confidence or a stale target prevents movement. However, it never explicitly says when to use smart_move instead of siblings like mouse_move or smart_click, leaving the alternative-selection reasoning implied.

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