mouse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparent burden. It only says 'Mouse control at pixel coordinates' but does not disclose that it moves the actual cursor, that down/up actions are stateful, that steps controls animation speed, or that the tool might affect a shared display. Critical behavioral context is absent.

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, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It is front-loaded with the core purpose but lacks structural detail. Conciseness is good but at the expense of usefulness.

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?

This tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the supported actions, coordinate conventions, button states, or session handling. Given the tool's complexity, the description is far too minimal to allow correct invocation without external knowledge.

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 56% (5 of 9 params have descriptions), yet the tool's description adds nothing about parameters. The undisclosed params x, y, dx, dy are ambiguous (absolute vs delta? coordinate origin?). The description does not compensate for the gaps in the schema, leaving an agent to guess their semantics.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Mouse control at pixel coordinates.' This defines the tool's purpose precisely enough to distinguish it as low-level mouse manipulation, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling actions like click, dblclick, or hover. It is specific about coordinates but leaves the range of actions implicit in the action parameter.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like click, dblclick, hover, or scroll. The description does not mention that this is a low-level primitive or recommend conditions for its use. An agent would have to infer from the parameter names that it might be used for raw input, but that is not stated.

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