cursor_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose scope ('your agents') and ordering ('newest first'), and the reconciliation hint implies returned fields (name, creation time). It says nothing about pagination, what the default limit does, or the shape of results, which is a real gap for a list tool with no output schema.

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 tight sentences, purpose and ordering front-loaded before the usage scenarios, with no filler.

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?

Purpose and usage are adequately covered, but with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, an agent still lacks the return shape, pagination behavior, and limit semantics needed to call it precisely.

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 single 'limit' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never explains it or its default. At best, 'newest first' implies which end truncation applies to, but the semantics of the parameter are left undocumented.

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 your agents') plus the ordering ('newest first'), which makes the operation unambiguous. However, it never names or contrasts with siblings like cursor_status or cursor_result, so differentiation from them is only implicit.

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?

Provides two concrete when-to-use scenarios: reconciling after a launch reports 'unknown' (with a matching method) and locating a lost agent. It stops short of explicit negatives or naming an alternative tool for those cases, so it is clear context but not full routing guidance.

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