Inspect mouse environment status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds value by clarifying the absence of side effects ('does not move the mouse') and by naming the state it surfaces, though it says nothing about failure modes or staleness semantics of the fields.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first front-loads the returned state, the second kills the most likely misread. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description needs only scope and side-effect clarity, which it provides. The only gap is the missing cue for when in a workflow to invoke it.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly spends no words on arguments.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates the exact resources inspected: routing state, companion freshness, viewport, platform, failure count. The closing sentence 'This does not move the mouse' explicitly distinguishes it from the action siblings mouse_move/mouse_click/mouse_drag.

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 field list suggests a diagnostic/pre-flight check before acting, but the description never says when to call it or which sibling to reach for otherwise (e.g. mouse_position for coordinates).

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