get_commands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'Get command usage analytics', it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format looks like, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key information and doesn't waste space on redundant details. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is being retrieved and what kind of data it provides.

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 complexity (analytics retrieval with date/user filtering), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It explains what data is retrieved but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output definition, more context would be helpful to ensure proper usage.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (startDate, endDate, users) well-documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's already in the schema, such as explaining how the analytics are calculated or what 'command usage' specifically entails. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Get command usage analytics: which Cursor commands are being used and how often.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('command usage analytics'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_usage_events' or 'get_daily_usage', which might also provide usage-related data.

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 sibling tools like 'get_usage_events', 'get_daily_usage', and 'get_mcp_usage' that might overlap in providing usage data, there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over others. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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