get_cursor_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 'buffer mode only' scope constraint, which affects invocation validity, but says nothing about what happens in screen mode (error vs. empty result) or whether it is a non-destructive read, leaving a gap for a tool with zero annotation cover.

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 short line with zero waste, front-loading the resource and the mode constraint. Nothing is padded or repeated from structured fields beyond the return shape that adds real value.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description nonetheless gives the (row, col) shape. For a one-parameter getter with no annotations, however, the undocumented session_id and the unexplained screen-mode behavior leave it only minimally complete.

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% and there is one parameter (session_id) that the description never mentions. The name and default make it semi-inferable from siblings like list_sessions, but the description does not compensate for the schema's silence on which session is being queried.

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 and return shape: the current cursor as (row, col). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_screen_region and assert_at_position, though it never names them. The purpose is clear without opening the schema.

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?

'buffer mode only' functions as an explicit exclusion, telling the agent this does not apply to screen mode, which is implied usage guidance. However, no alternative is named (e.g. use get_screen_region or assert_at_position in screen mode), so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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