Cursor10x MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Run diagnostics' implies a read-only analysis operation, it doesn't specify whether this is a lightweight check or intensive scan, what permissions are required, whether it affects system performance, what format the results take, or if it has rate limits. The description is too vague about the actual behavior beyond the basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action and target, making it immediately clear what the tool does. Every element of the sentence contributes meaningfully to understanding the tool's function.

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 diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what kind of issues are identified, what the diagnostic output looks like, whether it returns structured data or logs, or how results should be interpreted. Given the complexity of vector storage systems and the lack of structured output information, the description leaves too many open questions about what the tool actually produces.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist. This meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool, though it doesn't add any additional context about why no parameters are 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 the action ('Run diagnostics') and target ('on the vector storage system'), with the specific goal 'to identify issues'. It distinguishes from generic health checks like 'checkHealth' by focusing specifically on vector storage. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'manageVector' which might also involve vector system operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'checkHealth' (general health) or 'manageVector' (vector management). There's no mention of prerequisites, triggers, or scenarios where this diagnostic should be preferred over other tools. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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