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. It states the tool 'Stores' data, implying a write operation, but doesn't clarify persistence characteristics (e.g., how long messages are retained, storage limits), whether this requires specific permissions, or what happens on success/failure. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple storage operation and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (write operation with 3 parameters including nested objects) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It identifies what the tool does but lacks crucial context about behavioral traits, usage scenarios, and return values. The 100% schema coverage helps, but for a write operation with no output schema, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 ('Stores') and the resource ('an assistant message in the short-term memory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'storeUserMessage' by specifying 'assistant' message type. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other storage tools like 'storeDecision' or 'storeMilestone' in terms of what kind of content is appropriate for each.

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 'storeUserMessage', 'storeDecision', or 'storeMilestone'. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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