get_cursor_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose error behavior, authentication requirements, or what 'detailed documentation' includes. It is not misleading, but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious action.

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 extremely concise, with a front-loaded purpose statement and a single argument explanation. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no unnecessary detail.

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 simple one-parameter info-retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could enhance completeness by mentioning that the cursor_type should be one of the available cursors from list_available_cursors, but given the simplicity, it 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?

The schema has zero description coverage, so the description's 'Args: cursor_type: The cursor type name' adds some plain-language meaning. However, it largely repeats the schema's title and does not provide concrete examples, valid values, or a pointer to list_available_cursors.

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 'Get detailed documentation for a specific clearskies cursor type,' which specifies a distinct action and resource. It differentiates from sibling 'list_available_cursors' by targeting a single cursor type rather than listing all.

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 usage context is implied: you use this tool when you need details for a specific cursor type. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like list_available_cursors for discovering available types.

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