get_cursor_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'Get' reliably implies a read-only operation and the description does enumerate what is retrieved. However, it never mentions that a connected MuseScore instance is presumably required, given the connect_to_musescore sibling, nor any failure behavior without a connection.

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 front-loaded sentence with three concrete returned items and no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the resource.

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?

An output schema exists, so detailed return-value explanation is unnecessary, and a zero-parameter tool needs little schema narration. The only real gap relative to its complexity is the unstated dependency on an active MuseScore session.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. Nothing is misstated or missing on this dimension.

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 ('Get') and three concrete resources (cursor position, selection, score summary), which makes the output recognizable and distinct from get_score or get_score_metadata. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings.

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: the word 'current' signals this reports live editor state rather than stored score data. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over get_score or what preconditions (e.g., an active MuseScore connection) must hold.

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