get_client_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or whether it returns aggregated or raw data. This leaves gaps for an agent to understand operational context.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and key outputs (versions and percentages), making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose but lacks details on behavioral context and return values. For a read-only analytics tool with full parameter documentation, it's minimally viable but could benefit from more operational guidance to be fully complete.

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%, providing full documentation for all 3 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps, as there are none to fill.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Cursor client version distribution across the team', specifying what it retrieves (which versions are in use and percentage of users on each). It distinguishes from siblings like get_team_members or get_daily_usage by focusing on version analytics rather than user lists or time-based metrics.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools like get_team_overview or get_usage_events that might overlap in team analytics.

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