runrunit_share_cursor_agent

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses the main side effect (opens a pull request), the source directory (cursor-agents/), the auth requirement (GITHUB_TOKEN on the MCP server host only), auto-detection behavior, and the safety rule to never pass credentials. This gives an agent a strong picture of what will happen and what environment is needed.

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 front-loaded with the primary use case and then adds the distinguishing alternative, behavior, auth, and safeguards. Every sentence contributes essential information without becoming bloated, and the included language examples are compact and useful for matching user intent.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key invocation context: what it does, when to use it, where it reads from, and the required environment. It does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., a PR URL), but for the purpose of correct selection and invocation this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, providing the baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that project_root is where git origin is auto-detected for owner/repo/base branch, and that env vars can override this. This helps an agent understand why the optional project_root parameter matters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'share a Cursor agent with the team through GitHub' and 'Opens a pull request with one markdown file from cursor-agents/'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the local install sibling and the Bitbucket variants, so an agent can identify it without ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when the user wants to share a Cursor agent with the team through GitHub') and names the alternative for the local-use case ('For copying agents into ~/.cursor/agents locally, use runrunit_install_cursor_agents instead'). The GitHub scope also implicitly routes away from the Bitbucket sibling, and the token and project_root constraints give clear prerequisites.

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