get_cursor_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the return tuple is disclosed, which is useful. But the description does not mention side effects, prerequisites such as whether the document must be open, or error behavior.

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 a single efficient sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the core action and includes the exact return fields, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple getter with an output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose and return shape. However, it omits usage context such as prerequisites, relation to the doc_id parameter, and any distinguishing guidance against closely related sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning for doc_id beyond what the input schema already provides. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify which document's cursor position is being read or any required state.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current cursor position') and names the returned components (list, para, pos), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It is clearly distinguished from sibling setters like set_cursor_position and move_cursor.

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 intended use is implied by the name and description: call when you need the current cursor position in a document. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related tools like get_pos_by_set or get_selected_pos_by_set, nor any exclusion criteria.

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