Cursor: list repositories

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint: false. The description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint beyond those annotations: 'Rate limited to one call per minute.' This is important operational context that helps the agent avoid throttling. No contradiction exists.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the rate limit is a single additional sentence that earns its place. Every word contributes useful information.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool lists, the scope of those repositories, and the one operational constraint (rate limit). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. According to the rubric, zero-parameter tools should receive a baseline of 4 because there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description still adds semantic context about what the returned repositories represent, which is sufficient.

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: 'List GitHub repositories'. It further scopes the tool to repositories Cursor can launch an agent against, which distinguishes it from the other cursor_* tools that focus on agents, runs, environments, or models. The purpose is immediately clear even without inspecting the schema.

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 usage context by defining the resource ('repositories Cursor can launch an agent against'), which tells the agent what this tool is for. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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