computer_position

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the read-only nature via 'Get' and describes the return as a 'JSON envelope,' which is useful. It does not explicitly say the tool has no side effects or describe coordinate details, but for a simple getter the description is adequate.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose is the first sentence, followed by a concise Args section and a brief Returns section. Every sentence adds necessary information with no fluff.

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 one-parameter read-only getter with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the required parameter, and the return envelope shape. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though a bit more detail about the position data (e.g., coordinate system) would elevate it further.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that serialno is 'The computer device serialno, from list_devices.' This adds meaningful source and relationship information beyond the schema's bare string type, though it does not detail the exact format or validation rules.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the current mouse position.' This clearly distinguishes it from mutating siblings like computer_move and computer_click, which change the mouse state rather than query it.

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 phrase 'Get the current mouse position' implies when to use the tool, and the serialno note points to list_devices as a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as computer_move or state when not to use it, leaving usage context only implied.

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