cursor_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; "List" implies a read, and it usefully names the returned fields and that results are "recent" (implying recency ordering). It omits the default/max result behavior, ordering guarantees, whether filtering by status still returns recent jobs only, and pagination, so it falls short of full disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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 with no filler. It is economical, though the terseness is part of why usage and parameter guidance are missing.

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, unannotated two-optional-param read tool with no output schema, naming the returned fields covers the main gap. Still missing are the default limit, result ordering, and any differentiation from cursor_status, but the core call path is clear.

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 50%: `limit` is documented in the schema while `status` relies entirely on a self-explanatory enum. The description adds nothing about the parameters — it mentions "status" only as a returned field, not as a filter — but for a two-parameter tool with a clear enum, the schema does most of the work.

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 and resource ("List recent jobs") plus the fields returned (status, tier, duration), so the agent knows what it gets. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling cursor_status, which an agent could plausibly confuse with a per-job status lookup.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether to call this to discover job IDs before cursor_status, or to poll for completion. No alternatives (cursor_status, cursor_list vs. run) are named, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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