cursor_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ordering behavior and session scope, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether any state is modified, what happens when no cursors exist, or what the return format is. For a simple list tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: scope ('current session'), operation ('list'), and ordering ('by time'). It is a model of concise documentation.

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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it lists, the scope, and the ordering. It could mention the expected return shape (e.g., array of cursor IDs), but that is largely inferred from the tool name and description. Overall, an agent can invoke this correctly without further details.

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 accepts zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description correctly implies no inputs are required. There is no parameter ambiguity to resolve.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('all cursors registered in the current session') and adds ordering ('by time'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools cursor_set and cursor_delete, which are about modifying cursors.

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 clearly indicates that this tool is for inspecting cursors within the current session, which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude alternates, but the sibling names (cursor_set, cursor_delete) make the intended context obvious. A small gap is the lack of explicit 'use this when you need to review active cursors' guidance.

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