cursor_reply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the dependency on a prior cursor_agent/session_id, but says nothing about side effects (an agent session can read and modify code), blocking behavior, or what happens on failure/timeout for what is effectively a long-running state-changing call. The timeout semantics live only in the schema, and agent-session side effects are never surfaced.

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, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. The final sentence overlaps with the schema's session_id description, but it also usefully points at the sibling that produces the ID, so it earns most of 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all four parameters are documented in the schema. The description covers the action and the entry precondition, leaving only behavioral concerns such as side effects and long-running/blocking execution unaddressed.

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%, with the model, timeout, session_id and prompt parameters all documented in the schema itself. The description only restates the session_id requirement already covered in the schema and adds no format, default, or interaction detail for model/timeout overrides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Continue an existing Cursor agent session', 'Send a follow-up message') and contrasts implicitly with cursor_agent by emphasizing that the session must already exist. An agent can distinguish it from the session-creating sibling, though the contrast is framed as a prerequisite rather than an explicit sibling comparison.

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?

Clearly establishes the usage context ('the same conversation context') and the precondition ('Requires a session_id from a previous cursor_agent call'), which effectively routes the agent to cursor_agent when no session exists. No explicit when-not or named alternative is stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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