Computer Cursor Position

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden; it is clear the call is a cheap state read with no arguments, and the 'SCREENSHOT coordinates' phrase usefully discloses the reference frame. It does not say whether the value is live versus relative to the last captured screenshot, nor that it is side-effect free.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Slightly terse in that the key qualifier 'SCREENSHOT coordinates' is not unpacked, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and with zero params the surface is small. However, a stateless tool whose output is a bare coordinate pair is most useful only in relation to a screenshot, and the description never establishes that coupling or the timing semantics.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and the schema is empty.

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 a specific resource (mouse cursor position) and the coordinate frame it is reported in (SCREENSHOT coordinates), which is the crucial distinguishing detail. It does not name or contrast any sibling, so an agent must infer that this pairs with computer_screenshot and computer_click.

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 when-to-use guidance at all. Nothing says this must be called after computer_screenshot to map onto a click target, nor when to prefer this over computer_display_overview or computer_read_screen.

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