cursor_position

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is a positive disclosure, but it does not mention any error conditions, accessibility requirements, or whether the position refers to the primary display. The description is minimal but not misleading; it adequately conveys the core behavior for a simple getter.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states exactly what the tool does without any extraneous content, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly indicates the purpose and the coordinate system. It does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., a tuple or object), but 'cursor position in screen coordinates' strongly implies a coordinate pair. This is adequate for an agent to call the tool successfully.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100% of them. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4, and the description does not detract from that.

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 specific action (get) and resource (current cursor position), and specifies 'in screen coordinates' which adds precision. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mouse_move (which changes position) and click actions. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. It simply states what it does without any 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' hints. An agent must infer its applicability entirely from the name and siblings.

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