cursor

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects like modifying local configuration. The import action implies some modification, but this is not clarified.

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 a single sentence with no filler, efficient in length. However, it could be improved by listing all possible actions (including popular and categories) to avoid reliance on schema reading.

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?

The description lacks details about return values or results, which is important given no output schema. It does not explain what happens upon import (e.g., local file creation) or how browse/search results are formatted, leaving the agent with incomplete 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema provides descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already conveys, so 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 specifies the tool's action (browse, search, import) and resource (rules from cursor.directory). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rules or knowledge by referencing the community site. However, it omits the 'popular' and 'categories' actions enumerated in the schema, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rules, knowledge, or docs. No explicit context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the actions alone.

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