cursor_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only discloses that an auth endpoint is hit. It does not say whether the tool itself requires credentials, whether it is read-only, what failure modes look like, or what 'Extended-mode' refers to — notably ironic for a tool whose purpose is auth checking.

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 terse sentences with zero filler, the core action front-loaded and the routing hint ('Start here') placed last for emphasis. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema and no annotations the description is the only source of information, and it never clarifies the shape or meaning of the 'documented vs Extended-mode' result it promises. Minimum viable rather than complete.

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 takes zero parameters, which sets a baseline of 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed.

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?

States a concrete action (check auth via v1/me) and a concrete output (documented vs Extended-mode availability), which is more specific than the bare name cursor_status. It does not need to distinguish from siblings since none of them are auth/status probes, but the phrase 'documented vs Extended-mode availability' remains partly opaque.

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?

'Start here' is an explicit, unambiguous directive about when to call this tool relative to the rest of the toolset. There is no exclusion or when-not guidance, so it falls short of the top mark.

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