desktop_cursor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: read-only, no side effects. However it says nothing about return format, coordinate space (screen vs window, multi-monitor origin, DPI scaling), which is the main behavioral risk for a coordinate-reading 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?

A single short clause with the operation and its safety property front-loaded; every word earns its place and nothing is buried.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description conveys what is returned (cursor coordinates) and that it is safe. A note on coordinate reference frame would make it fully complete for multi-monitor or scaled-display setups.

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 parameter-related the description needed to explain and none is missing.

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+resource: reads the current mouse cursor coordinates, which is clearly distinct from siblings like desktop_move, desktop_click, or desktop_perceive. It doesn't explicitly name what it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs the cursor position (e.g. before a relative desktop_move). No explicit when-to-use context, prerequisites, or alternatives are given.

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