cursor_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does contribute genuine behavioral context — sessions are scoped to 'this MCP server instance,' so the listing is ephemeral — but it omits safety profile (read-only vs mutating), pagination/limits, and whether sessions are ever pruned or expire.

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 purpose and the scope qualifier, then the returned fields, then the actionable follow-up. No filler or repetition of structured fields.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, output fields, and lifecycle scope adequately. The remaining gap — return volume or ordering — is minor given the low complexity of the tool.

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; baseline 4 applies. No parameter guidance is needed or missing.

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 ('List Cursor agent sessions') and adds scope ('created during this MCP server instance') plus returned fields (session IDs, models, prompts). It is clearly distinguishable from cursor_reply, which it explicitly references, though it does not position itself against cursor_agent, cursor_models, or cursor_health.

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 sentence 'Use session IDs with cursor_reply to continue a conversation' implies the reason to call this tool (to obtain IDs for continuation), but it never states when this tool should be chosen over siblings, nor any condition under which it is unnecessary. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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