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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses a significant limitation: Store databases, Agent transcripts and ACP stores are not included. It also says the backup is restorable, which clarifies the intended downstream use, though it does not detail side effects or system interactions.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence about excluded data types is useful but the phrasing 'Store databases' is slightly awkward; still, every sentence 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?

For a simple tool with two fully documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. The main gap is that it does not mention what the restore workflow expects, but that is likely covered by the cursor_history_restore sibling.

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%, and both force and outputPath already have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, which is acceptable under the high-coverage baseline.

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 identifies the verb (back up), resource (Composer chat history), and output type (restorable ZIP archive). It is distinguishable from the sibling tools by operation and format, though it never explicitly names an alternative such as cursor_history_export or cursor_history_restore.

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 purpose itself implies when to use it: when the agent needs a restorable archive of Composer chat history. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over export, migrate, or year_pack, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Returns the formatted content', which clarifies the output but omits any side effects (e.g., whether a file is saved), how session selection works (sessionId vs sessionIndex), workspace scope requirements, or any limits. For a complex tool with a oneOf constraint, this is insufficient.

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 one concise sentence that gets straight to the point: what the tool does and the output format. No filler, no repetition. It is appropriately sized for its purpose.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, a oneOf requirement (sessionId XOR sessionIndex), and no output schema or annotations. The description leaves out critical context: how to choose between sessionId and sessionIndex, that workspace must match the listing scope, that includeCrossWorkspaceSources is opt-in, and what errors might occur. The schema covers parameter-level details, but the overall tool behavior is under-described.

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 baseline is 3. The description echoes the format options (Markdown/JSON) already documented in the schema but adds no new semantics about parameters. The phrase 'formatted content' is a trivial restatement of the schema's 'human-readable' for markdown and 'structured data' for JSON. No value beyond the schema is provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export') and a clear resource ('Cursor AI chat session'), and names the exact output formats (Markdown or JSON). This distinguishes it from siblings like cursor_history_backup and cursor_history_show, which imply different operations. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as cursor_history_show or cursor_history_backup. It does not state any prerequisites, exclusions, or typical usage scenarios. The only hint is the word 'Export', which weakly implies a file-producing intent, but nothing explicit is provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns recent sessions with workspace, message count, and timestamps, but it doesn't specify ordering guarantees, pagination behavior, or whether session IDs are included in the results.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the return metadata is stated immediately, making it easy to scan.

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?

The description adequately summarizes the return payload but, with no output schema, it should clarify whether session IDs are returned so an agent can feed them into sibling tools like cursor_history_show. Sorting semantics and scope behavior are also left implicit.

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 documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List Cursor AI chat sessions') and names the return content. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling cursor_history_search, but the list vs. search contrast is reasonably inferable.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of cursor_history_search, cursor_history_show, or other siblings. The phrase 'recent sessions' implies a browsing use case, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns that moving removes the original, recommends a backup, mentions that certain session types are refused, and points to dryRun for preview. This is strong disclosure, though it does not cover permission requirements or overwrite/conflict behavior.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by eligibility constraints, a preview recommendation, and a safety warning. Every sentence 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?

For a mutation tool with six parameters, a oneOf selection constraint, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow, eligibility, preview, and destructive consequences. It does not explicitly describe the return value or whether the destination workspace must already exist, but those are minor gaps given the rich schema.

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 documents each parameter. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond restating that dryRun is for preview and move deletes the original, which are also encoded in the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Move or copy') on a specific resource ('eligible Composer sessions') with an explicit scope ('between workspaces'). It also distinguishes the tool by naming ineligible session types, making it easy to separate from backup/restore/export siblings.

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 implies when to use the tool: when sessions need to move or copy between workspaces. It also tells the user to dryRun first and back up before moving, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling alternatives such as backup/export/restore or state when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It starts with a warning icon and 'DESTRUCTIVE', explicitly states that it 'can overwrite Composer history', lists what it does not cover, and advises to back up first. This fully discloses the mutation risk, scope, and required safety measure. It goes beyond the minimal requirement and is exceptionally transparent for a destructive 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?

The description is a single sentence with the most critical warning (DESTRUCTIVE) front-loaded and immediately visible. It conveys the operation, exclusions, and a safety directive in a compact form. There is no fluff or redundancy; 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 that the schema covers both parameters fully and the description mentions the destructive nature, exclusions, and the need to back up, the description is complete for an agent to decide when and how to safely call the tool. There is no output schema, but that is not required for a destructive operation where the core concern is the side effects, which are clearly disclosed. The absence of return-value information is acceptable.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra meaning about the parameters themselves; it only provides operational context (destructive warning, exclusions). The schema already documents backupPath and force, including the server's lack of interactive confirmation. The description adds no parameter-specific value beyond the schema, so the 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 'Restore Composer databases from a backup archive', which identifies the verb, resource, and scope. It also explicitly lists what it does NOT restore (Store databases, Agent transcripts, ACP stores), which distinguishes it from other operations and siblings. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 gives an explicit warning about destructive behaviour and instructs to 'Back up current Composer data first', which is a clear prerequisite. It also states exclusions ('does not restore Store databases, Agent transcripts or ACP stores'), helping the agent avoid misusing it for those data types. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like cursor_history_backup, though the context and naming make the counterpart obvious. This is clear guidance with minor gap in explicit alternative naming.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read-only search behavior and return shape, but it doesn't clarify scope limitations such as workspace vs all sessions, ordering, pagination, or the cross-workspace opt-in behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the action and scope, the second states the return value. Every sentence earns its place and nothing repeats the schema.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what the caller receives and how scope is controlled. It gives only a high-level return statement and leaves the workspace-vs-all ambiguity and cross-workspace behavior unaddressed, so an agent may not invoke it correctly in scoped contexts.

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?

All five parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The prose only paraphrases 'keyword or phrase' for query and 'context around each match' for context, adding no genuinely new semantic detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), names the resource ('all Cursor AI chat sessions'), and states the output ('Returns matching sessions with context around each match'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list/show/export/backup 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 implies the search use case: finding sessions by keyword or phrase. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over cursor_history_list or cursor_history_show, and no exclusions or conditions are stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It usefully discloses that content is read-only ('Inspect'), includes provenance, and that long thinking and tool payloads are abbreviated. It does not cover permissions, side effects, or error behavior, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose first and the key limitation/alternative second. There is no fluff, and each sentence contributes real information.

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 there are no annotations and no output schema, the description still conveys the main output characteristics (messages, tool activity, source, timestamps) and the notable abbreviation behavior. It does not fully specify output format or edge cases, but schema already handles the parameter side, so this is reasonably 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a descriptive meaning. The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema states, so it lands at the baseline score.

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 a specific action ('Inspect') and resource ('messages and tool activity in a Cursor session'), with source and timestamp provenance. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as cursor_history_list or cursor_history_search, so sibling differentiation is partial.

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 a clear alternative: 'use export for unabridged available content.' This directly tells when not to use this tool (when full, unabridged content is needed), but it lacks any guidance on choosing between show, list, and search, leaving usage guidance incomplete.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly calls out 'Read-only operation' and 'sanitized JSON', which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not mention performance implications or potential side effects like long processing time.

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 two sentences, extremely concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value.

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 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality and safety. It mentions the output format (JSON summary + prompt template). Could be improved by explaining 'sanitized' or typical processing time.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It only gives high-level output summary.

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 'generate', the resource 'year-in-review data package from Cursor AI chat history', and the output (sanitized JSON summary plus prompt template). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search' or 'list' by being specifically for annual analysis.

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 mentions it's read-only, implying safety, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like cursor_history_search or cursor_history_show. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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