cursor

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only or destructive. The 'import' action might imply modification, but this is not clarified. The description falls short of informing the agent about side effects or required permissions.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose, front-loading the key action and resource. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words, earning a high score for conciseness given the tool's relative simplicity.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return values or behavioral outcomes. It only gives a high-level purpose without specifying what happens after each action (e.g., results of search, confirmation of import). The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain how parameters like 'slug' or 'query' relate to the actions, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: browsing, searching, and importing rules from the cursor.directory community. It specifies both the action (browse, search, import) and the resource (rules from cursor.directory), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'rules' or 'knowledge' which may have different scopes.

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 the tool is used for interacting with community rules, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'rules' or 'knowledge'). No exclusions or conditions are provided, so while the use case is clear, the guidance is minimal.

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