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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by enumerating result states and clarifying that not-running means the turn ended while the session can still be resumed — non-obvious outcome semantics, especially valuable since no output schema 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?

Two tight sentences: the action front-loaded, then the terse outcome enumeration. No filler.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, target, and all four possible result states. The only gap is any note on preconditions (e.g., what happens if the session is not found) beyond the status word itself.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters carry their own descriptions, including the force grace-period behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes sessionId ('by sessionId') and adds nothing about the force parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (cancel), resource (an in-flight Cursor turn), and the keying parameter (sessionId). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings delegate and doctor, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 phrase 'in-flight Cursor turn' implies the precondition for use, and the status list hints at outcomes, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the call blocks until the turn is terminal, it encompasses tool work and sub-agent follow-up, concurrent calls on a running session are rejected, and the reply plus sessionId come back. It does not spell out that the agent may modify files, but the blocking and concurrency semantics are genuinely informative.

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?

Five tight sentences with zero filler, and the core blocking behavior plus return contract are front-loaded before the caveats. Every sentence carries a distinct, useful fact.

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 no output schema, the description correctly discloses the return shape (Cursor's reply and the reusable sessionId). Combined with full schema coverage, an agent has what it needs to invoke the tool. The one loose end is the unexplained 'You decide CONTINUE, COMPLETE, or BLOCKED', which is opaque without further context.

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% across all 9 parameters, so the schema already carries defaults, enums, and constraints. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond noting the sessionId is meant for reuse, which the schema also states. Baseline 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 names a specific action (send a prompt to Cursor Agent) and a specific resource/session model, and states the blocking contract: it waits until the Cursor turn is terminal, including tool work and sub-agent follow-up. It also distinguishes itself from the wrong approach ('Do not shell out to the agent binary'), so an agent can tell this apart from the sibling cancel/doctor tools without opening a 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?

Gives real usage context: omit sessionId to start a session, reuse the returned sessionId for follow-up, and a second call against a still-running session is rejected. It also steers away from shelling out to the agent binary. It stops short of explicitly comparing itself to the cancel and doctor siblings, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior claim — auth state is reported 'without secrets' — but says nothing about cost, latency, or the fact that the optional ACP handshake spins up a session (that detail lives only in the schema).

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 lists the checks in a scannable order with no filler. It is slightly dense as a laundry list, but every clause names a distinct diagnostic area, so nothing is wasted.

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 zero-required-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what will be reported, which effectively previews the return contents. The main remaining gap is not explaining the format or granularity of the report, but the coverage is otherwise adequate.

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%, so both 'deep' and 'workspace' are fully documented in the schema, and the baseline is 3. The description only loosely gestures at the 'deep' parameter via 'an optional ACP handshake' and never mentions the workspace scan, adding little beyond structured data.

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 names a specific verb ('Report') and enumerates exactly what is reported: Node and bridge versions, Cursor CLI discovery, auth state, and an ACP handshake. This is clearly a diagnostics tool, distinguishable in intent from the sibling 'delegate' and 'cancel' actions, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied — the list of checks signals 'run this to troubleshoot or verify your setup' — but there is no explicit statement of when to call it, when a deep run is warranted, or how it relates to the sibling tools. An agent can infer the context but is given no routing guidance.

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