get_cursor_measurement

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently explains mode-dependent return behavior, the null case for 1/deltaX with deltaX=0, and the fact that only mode is returned when there is nothing to read. It doesn't discuss errors or permissions, but for a non-mutating instrument read this is strong coverage.

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 compact and well organized: a one-line purpose, a precise list of output fields with units, and a short edge-case paragraph. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description fully compensates by documenting the return fields, their units, the null behavior, and the only-mode behavior in invalid cursor modes. It also supplies the prerequisite action (configure_cursor first), making it complete for safe invocation.

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 parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and parameter semantics do not need elaboration. The description appropriately focuses on return values instead of parameters, matching the 0-param baseline.

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 opens with a specific read verb and resource ('Read what the cursors currently measure'), then enumerates the exact returned values and their units. It distinguishes itself from the sibling configure_cursor by explicitly positioning that tool as the prerequisite for placing cursors, so an agent can tell get vs. configure apart.

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 provides clear usage context: when cursor mode is off or xy, there is nothing to read, and only mode is returned; it also instructs the agent to call configure_cursor first. It does not explicitly contrast with other measurement siblings like measure, but the read-only retrieval role is well established.

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