bulk_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does state read-only, which is useful, but does not disclose authorization requirements, rate limits, mutation side effects (none expected), or what 'via Cursor CLI' implies for execution. It also doesn't mention whether reading many files can fail partially.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the operation and its read-only nature. No wasted words; every clause adds value.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not cover required inputs beyond a name-level hint, execution environment ('Cursor CLI'), or expected output. It omits any guidance on the root/model parameters and file constraints.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'paths' implicitly and 'question' implicitly, but does not explain the root, model, or the 16-file max, min 1 constraint, or formatting expectations for the question. Four params with zero coverage and minimal description leaves gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read authorized files and answer a question via Cursor CLI.' It distinguishes itself from the code_write sibling by the read-only marker. However, it doesn't fully clarify how it differs from status or what 'bulk' scope means beyond the paths array.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name an alternative or state conditions under which this read approach is preferable to alternatives. The read-only hint implies safe use but does not guide selection.

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