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 behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape and that the value is in seconds, and 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side-effect safety or error behavior if no cursor exists.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The purpose comes first, followed immediately by the return 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?

For a simple zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers what the tool does and what it returns, including units. Minor edge cases, such as behavior when no cursor is available, are omitted but not essential.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, this is adequately handled by the empty schema.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get the edit cursor position'), and the 'edit' qualifier subtly separates it from playback cursor tools like get_play_position. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as set_cursor_position or get_play_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 purpose implies the tool is called when you need the current edit cursor location, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance. No alternatives (e.g., set_cursor_position to change cursor, get_play_position for playback cursor) are mentioned.

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