get_cursor_position

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that coordinates are in absolute layout space rather than screen or window-relative coordinates, which is a meaningful non-obvious detail. The get prefix and zero-parameter signature imply a read-only operation, so additional safety disclosure is less critical.

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. It names the resource and the coordinate system without wasting words.

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-parameter read-only query with an output schema, the description covers the key contextual detail (absolute layout coordinates) and needs little else. It does not explicitly describe return values, but the output schema supplies those.

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 has zero parametersaine; baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exists, and the coordinate-space detail indirectly clarifies what the return value means.

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 the resource (cursor position) and its coordinate space (absolute layout coordinates), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly use a verb, but the tool name 'get_cursor_position' supplies the read action. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like mouse_move or screenshot.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related mouse/input tools, such as before mouse_move or to verify current pointer state. While the purpose is obvious from the name, explicit usage context is absent.

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