find_my_mouse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('trigger') and effect ('highlight the cursor'), but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a one-time or persistent highlight, duration, visual characteristics, permissions needed, or system requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste - every word contributes to understanding the tool's function. Front-loaded with the core action ('trigger') and immediately specifies what happens ('highlight the cursor on all screens').

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?

For a simple, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic action and effect. However, without annotations, it should ideally provide more behavioral context (duration, visual details, system requirements). The description is minimally adequate but could be more complete given the lack of structured metadata.

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 has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It focuses on the action and outcome, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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 specific action ('trigger') and resource ('find my mouse feature') with precise outcome ('highlight the cursor on all screens'). It distinguishes from all sibling tools which are focused on presentation/audio/playlist management, not cursor visibility.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or whether this should be used instead of other cursor-related functions (though none appear in siblings).

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