Cursor bridge diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds value by detailing the best-effort GitHub update check and the AGY_BRIDGE_NO_UPDATE_CHECK environment variable, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 composed of four efficient sentences, front-loading the purpose and quota-free nature. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 zero parameters, existing output schema, and thorough description of diagnostics reported, the description is fully complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it will return.

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?

With zero parameters, schema coverage is 100% and baseline is 4. No additional parameter description 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?

The description clearly states 'Report diagnostics for the Cursor bridge setup' with specific resources (bridge version, cursor-agent, login status, chat storage). It distinguishes from sibling antigravity_status by noting the same update notice is shown, clarifying overlap.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to debug cursor not found or auth errors before spending quota,' providing clear usage context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use but is sufficient for a diagnostic tool.

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