da_get_mouse_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it returns screen coordinates (not relative or element-local coordinates), which is useful. It implies read-only behavior implicitly. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, whether the position reflects a real OS-level query, or performance characteristics. For a zero-parameter read tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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, tight sentence that conveys purpose and return shape with zero waste. Every word adds value.

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-only query tool with no output schema, the description is essentially complete. It tells the agent what it returns and in what coordinate space. There's little else a simple getter tool needs to convey. The description fully compensates for the absence of an output schema by stating the return type.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so schema does nothing. Baseline is 4 for 0-param tools since there's nothing to document. The description correctly focuses on what is returned (the { x, y } coordinate pair) rather than inputs, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Return the current cursor position as { x, y } in screen coordinates.' It states what it returns and the coordinate space. It's a simple, singular tool (get position), so it naturally differs from sibling tools like da_move_mouse or da_click without needing explicit 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?

The description implies usage context (querying cursor position) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. However, since it's a read-only query tool with no real alternatives among siblings (none retrieve position), the usage context is reasonably clear. No exclusions or alternative guidance provided.

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