Cursor: diff environment definitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by disclosing that scripts and MCP patterns are compared by digest and that no field value can leave through the diff, which is a significant security/privacy guarantee beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the key behavioral guarantee. Every clause adds information without redundancy.

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?

With a full input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and the privacy-critical digest mechanism. The only gap is that 'bounded' is not fully elaborated, but the output schema and 100% parameter documentation make the overall context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each property (base, proposed, text, source, repoRoot) already extensively documented. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 precise operation: a bounded semantic diff between two Cursor environment definitions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling validation, inspection, and listing tools, and the verb-resource structure ('diff environment definitions') leaves no ambiguity.

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 implies this tool is used when comparing two environment definitions, but it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid it relative to alternatives like cursor_validate_environment_definition or cursor_inspect_environment_definition. The 'bounded' and digest-based wording suggests a safe comparison use case, but no exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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