get_cursor_xy_values

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a reasonable job: it declares the unit (V), the required instrument state, and the failure behavior (unavailable readings returned as '<error ...>' strings). It does not cover permissions or returned structure, but the output schema handles the latter.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, followed by the necessary precondition and error note. No filler; every clause adds information.

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 tool with an output schema, the description supplies the essential context an agent needs: the required XY-mode state and the error-string convention. It is largely complete, though a pointer to the time-domain sibling would close the remaining gap.

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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly adds no parameter noise.

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 and resource ('Read XY-mode cursor positions and deltas') with units (V), which is far more than a restatement of the name. The 'XY-mode' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling get_cursor_values, but no sibling is explicitly named, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Gives a clear precondition: it is only meaningful with :CURSor:MODE XY and the timebase in XY mode. This tells the agent when the tool is applicable, but it never names the alternative (get_cursor_values) for time-domain cursors or states when not to use it.

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