get_cursor_values

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it explains what is always returned in manual mode, that track=True adds track-mode readings and the track axis, and that unavailable readings become '<error ...>' strings. It stops short of covering prerequisite states (e.g., whether a cursor mode must already be active), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then progressively detailing mode behavior, parameter effect, and error format. Every sentence adds needed information without redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool whose output schema already documents the return keys, the description supplies the remaining context: what is always returned, what track=True adds, and how unavailable readings are represented. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single undocumented parameter. It does exactly that by explaining that track=True additionally reads track-mode readings (track_* keys) and the track axis, which is meaning beyond the schema's bare boolean default.

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 verb (read) and resource (cursor positions and deltas) scoped to the active cursor mode. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_cursor_xy_values, leaving an agent to infer which cursor-reading tool is appropriate.

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 implies usage by referencing the active cursor mode, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name an alternative tool. An agent gets context but must infer the right situation.

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