show_ai_cursor

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one important requirement—the companion VS Code extension must be connected—which adds some context about the execution environment. However, it does not explain what happens if the extension is not connected, whether the cursor persists, updates, or requires explicit removal, or any side effects of calling this tool.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of a single purpose statement and one critical requirement. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to scan.

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 description is adequate for a relatively simple visual-indicator tool, but misses some contextual information that would be helpful given the sibling tools. It does not mention how this cursor interacts with the diagram or whether it's transient. The schema covers parameters well, so the description's brevity is not a critical flaw, but it could benefit from a note on behavior when the extension is unavailable or when the cursor should be cleared.

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 provides 100% coverage for all five parameters, each with a clear description. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but because the schema is fully descriptive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description's mention of 'specific position' aligns with the required x and y parameters but adds no additional semantic over what the schema already provides.

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's function: showing an AI cursor indicator at a specific position in a draw.io diagram. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like show_ai_selection (which likely highlights a selection) or highlight_element, leaving some room for confusion in tool selection.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual hint is the requirement for a companion VS Code extension, but this is a prerequisite rather than a usage guideline. There are no stated exclusions, alternatives, or scenarios that would help an agent decide between this tool and its siblings.

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