get_cursor_position

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the return value is an object containing the cursor position in seconds. It does not mention side effects, but none are expected given the read-only annotation.

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 two short lines with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then immediately states the return type and units. 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only getter, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, the return type, and the units. The only minor ambiguity is the exact key name inside the returned object, but this does not affect the agent's ability to 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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter guidance is needed; the description correctly focuses entirely on the return value.

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.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling get_play_position, which queries the playhead rather than the edit cursor. The addition of return units further clarifies intent.

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 gives clear context by naming the exact resource (edit cursor) and result format. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the resource name itself disambiguates from get_play_position and set_cursor_position. For a no-parameter getter, this is adequate.

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