get_cursor_position

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the coordinate system ('screen pixels') and the return structure (JSON with ok, x, y), which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise with two short sections: a clear one-sentence purpose and a return format example. No wasted words. The 'Returns' block is a bit unusual but adds clarity without bloat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is a simple zero-parameter getter with an output schema. The description states what it does and the return format. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. Given the low complexity and structured metadata, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 0 parameters, so there is nothing to document. Per the rubric, 0 params baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter info; its mention of the output format is helpful but not required for parameter understanding.

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 returns the current mouse cursor position in screen pixels, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('mouse cursor position'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_screen_size (returns screen dimensions) and mouse_move (changes position).

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need the current cursor coordinates. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but for such a simple getter the intended use is obvious. The sibling list shows related mouse operations that are functionally different.

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