faf_cursor

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

While annotations provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as file overwriting via 'force' or the fact that 'sync' modifies both files. The phrase 'AI interop!' is vague and adds no concrete behavior details.

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 a single sentence, concise and to the point. However, the exclamation and 'AI interop!' are somewhat extraneous, minimally impacting clarity.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return values or success signals. It also omits that the 'path' parameter sets session context for subsequent calls, a key detail for understanding tool behavior.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, achieving baseline adequacy.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: import, export, and sync operations between .cursorrules and project.faf files. It distinguishes itself by referencing Cursor IDE, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like faf_sync or faf_tri_sync, which may cause confusion.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another tool might be more appropriate.

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