cursor_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the scope of checks performed. However, it never states that the call is non-destructive/read-only, whether it requires credentials to run, or what a failed check looks like. For a harmless diagnostic the risk is low, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action and its scope front-loaded before the usage cue. Nothing is redundant with the tool name.

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 zero-param diagnostic, the description covers what is checked and when to call it. The only missing piece is what the result contains (e.g., per-check pass/fail status), which matters slightly since no output schema exists.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter hints are present.

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?

States a specific verb (Check) and three concrete resources it inspects: CLI installation, authentication, and server configuration. This is unmistakably a diagnostic tool, cleanly distinguished from the action-oriented siblings (cursor_agent, cursor_reply, cursor_sessions).

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?

"Run this first to verify everything is set up correctly" gives an explicit trigger (setup verification / initial call). It lacks any when-not guidance or named alternatives, but for a zero-param health check the usage context is clear enough.

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