Fetch cursor

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by explaining the exhausted flag and batch size limits. It aligns with annotations (read operation) and informs the agent about polling termination conditions.

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 only two sentences, no filler, and all information is essential. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 complexity (cursor fetch with batch size and exhaustion signal), the description adequately covers all necessary points: what it does, when to stop, and batch constraints. The presence of an output schema (not shown) does not require additional description of return values.

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?

While the description covers semantics for batch_size (default and cap), it does not describe the required cursor_id parameter. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves a gap for cursor_id.

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 that the tool fetches the next batch from an open server-side cursor, using specific verb 'fetch' and resource 'next batch'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like open_cursor and close_cursor by focusing on the incremental fetch operation.

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 clear context for usage, including when to stop polling (exhausted=true) and the batch size defaults/cap. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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