delegate

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the agent has full tool access (read, edit, shell) and is cheap/fast, which gives important context. However, it does not disclose potential risks, error behavior, or whether operations are destructive, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It opens with the core purpose and then adds usage context efficiently.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately covers its purpose, capabilities, and when to use it. It lacks details about return values or error handling, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, e.g., it mentions 'cwd' but schema already explains it. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool delegates tasks to a Cursor CLI agent, specifying it runs headless and is cheap/fast with full tool access. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (explore, follow_up), only implying use cases for routine implementation and edits.

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 guidance: it is intended for routine implementation, edits, and tasks where a cheaper model suffices. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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