reply_run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to repeat those. It adds context about retaining the same agentId, which is useful for understanding continuity, but does not elaborate on side effects, authentication requirements, or potential risks beyond what annotations imply. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for what it states, though it lacks any structured breakdown of use cases or parameters, preventing a perfect score.

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 complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and the description's brevity, the tool is under-documented. It omits crucial operational details such as return format, error conditions, parameter semantics, and any preconditions beyond 'ended session.' Annotations cover safety, but the description fails to provide enough context for correct invocation.

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 0% and the description provides no information about any of the 8 parameters, including required ones like parentRunId, task, and idempotencyKey. With no schema hints and no description compensation, an agent cannot infer the purpose or format of these parameters, making this a critical gap.

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 action ('initiate a follow-up run') and its scoping conditions ('in an ended Cursor Agent session', 'retain the same agentId'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_run that likely start new sessions. The verb and resource are explicit and specific.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (for ended sessions) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. It neither names sibling tools nor provides exclusion criteria, leaving some inference required for an agent to choose between this and start_run or other run-related tools.

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