cursor_usage

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

No annotations were provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It declares the tool as 'read-only', which is correct and important. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like error handling, rate limits, or scope of operations beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and read-only nature, plus authentication and usage advice. No unnecessary words.

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 (3 parameters, 1 required, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, auth, and usage. It could be improved by briefly explaining the operations, but the parameter schema compensates.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to redefine semantics. The description adds a usage hint for 'alert_check' but otherwise does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Cursor billing and spend guardrails (read-only)', which identifies the resource and action. It distinguishes from sibling tools (cursor_cloud, cursor_docs, etc.) which cover different domains.

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 prerequisites (CURSOR_API_KEY) and a usage pattern ('Use alert_check on a schedule...'). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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