getCursorTrack

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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses downsampling, the per-point field semantics (atSec, virtualSec, cx/cy, shape, kind, trimmed, visible), that these are raw samples not a summary, and two distinct 'available:false' failure reasons that must not be confused. That is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a read 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first clause, and every subsequent sentence carries information (field meanings, defaults, failure modes). It is dense and somewhat run-on in the middle, but no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, including error semantics. The remaining gap is minor: no guidance on data volume/pagination or how to obtain a valid assetId.

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?

Schema coverage is 50% — projectId is documented in-schema but assetId is not. The description compensates by specifying the default behavior ('Omit assetId for the primary asset'), which is meaningful semantics beyond the schema, though it never says where assetIds come from (e.g., listSources).

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 the recorded pointer track for an asset') plus the shape of the data ('where the cursor was over time, downsampled to a readable rate'). This clearly separates it from siblings like getFrames (rendered frames) and setPointerTrack (mutation).

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 concrete usage context: omit assetId for the primary asset, and virtualSec is explicitly named as the coordinate addZoom takes, which routes the agent to the downstream tool. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a named alternative for reading pointer data from other sources.

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