check

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 describes the checks performed but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or what its output format is. However, the verb 'verifica' implies a non-destructive check, and the context of a diagnostic tool suggests no side effects. Missing explicit statement of output behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with 'Diagnóstico', and every word earns its place. It states the checks and the usage condition 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?

For a simple diagnostic tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it does and when to use it. It could mention what the output looks like, but the lack of an output schema makes that less critical. Overall, sufficient for an agent to invoke it.

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, so the description has nothing to add beyond the empty schema. The baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: a diagnostic that verifies three specific things (CLI installation, version, and CURSOR_API_KEY availability). The verb 'verifica' and the resource 'cursor-agent' make it specific. It distinguishes from siblings by being the only diagnostic tool among 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?

It explicitly advises to run this first when something fails unexpectedly ('Corré esto primero si algo falla raro'), providing a clear when-to-use condition. It doesn't mention alternatives, but no sibling serves a diagnostic purpose, so this is adequate.

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