faf_cursor

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate modifications but not destruction. Description adds that it returns the merged or written result, providing some behavioral context. However, it does not detail side effects or edge cases (e.g., what happens on conflict).

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 concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and provide usage guidance. No unnecessary words.

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's limited scope (sync between two file types) and the presence of schema with full parameter descriptions and annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's function and expected output. Lacks specifics on result format but is sufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds general context about actions (import/export/sync) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool imports, exports, or syncs context between .cursorrules and project.faf. The verb 'sync' and resources are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like faf_sync and faf_context by focusing on Cursor rules.

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?

Description provides usage context: 'Use this to keep Cursor rules and your .faf in agreement from one source.' It implies when to use but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives. However, 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.