get_cursor_position

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that coordinates can be expressed in monitor/screenshot/window-relative frames, but says nothing about return shape or any side conditions (e.g. what happens if the pointer is on another output).

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 no filler, and the coordinate-frame detail is placed where it matters. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for the parameter surface it must support.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is close to adequate. However, with three parameters at 33% schema coverage, the ambiguity around source and include_global is left unresolved, so it is only minimally sufficient.

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 only 33%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The enum values auto/hyprland/agent for source and the purpose of include_global are left unexplained in both the schema and the description, which is a real gap an agent cannot resolve.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Return") with a specific resource ("current cursor position") and even names the coordinate frames, which cleanly separates it from write-oriented siblings like move_mouse or click. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as screenshot, get_screenshot, or the move/click family, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and context.

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