generate_cursor_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool generates a file but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like: whether it creates/overwrites files, what format the output takes, if it requires specific permissions, or how it handles errors. For a file generation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral unknowns.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for this tool's complexity and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, file generation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It identifies what the tool produces but doesn't explain the output format, file location, or how the generated rules function. For a configuration generation tool among many similar siblings, more contextual differentiation would be helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how these inputs affect the generated rules, provide examples of complete configurations, or clarify relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generates a .cursorrules file for Cursor AI based on the project stack.' It specifies the verb ('Generates'), resource ('.cursorrules file'), and context ('based on the project stack'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_claude_config' or 'generate_copilot_config' which appear to be similar configuration generators for other AI tools.

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. With multiple sibling tools that generate configurations for different AI assistants (Claude, Copilot, Cline, etc.), there's no indication of when Cursor AI rules are appropriate versus other AI tool configurations. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context is provided.

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