cursor_help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'List' implies a non-destructive read operation, the description could explicitly state that it is read-only or has no side effects. However, given the simple nature of a help command, the transparency is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place. It is perfectly concise with no unnecessary fluff.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no annotations, an output schema exists), the description completely covers its purpose. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does: list tools and setup. Nothing more is needed.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The input schema is empty and fully covered (100%). The description adds no parameter info because none are needed. This 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 'List cursor-mcp tools and setup.' uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('cursor-mcp tools and setup'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools (like cursor_cloud, cursor_docs) which are specific tools, while this is a general overview tool.

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 usage when an agent needs an overview of available tools and setup, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when you need documentation of a specific tool). No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are provided.

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