cursor_agent_plan_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool generates a plan but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it is a long-running operation. This is insufficient for an agent to understand behavioral implications.

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 very concise at one sentence, with no fluff. However, it lacks structure such as sections or examples that could improve readability. It is appropriately sized but could be more informative without being verbose.

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?

Given 13 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the generated plan contains, how it is returned, or how to interpret the output. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 46% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining key parameters. It only mentions 'optional constraints' for the constraints parameter, adding minimal value beyond the schema. The other 12 parameters are not elaborated.

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?

Clearly states the tool generates a plan for a goal with optional constraints. The verb 'generate' and resource 'plan for a goal' are specific. Though abstract, it differentiates from sibling tools like cursor_agent_chat or cursor_agent_edit_file.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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