Show cursor-usage configuration status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word "Reports" implies a read-only operation and enumerating the reported items adds useful context. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool makes no changes, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or output format. It provides moderate transparency but leaves the read-only nature implicit.

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, front-loaded sentence. It begins with the verb "Reports" and then lists the key information categories without unnecessary filler. Every word earns its place, achieving high conciseness.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete enumeration of the report content (auth source, session/endpoints, thresholds, etc.). It could go further by explicitly noting the read-only nature or how the output is presented, but for a status-reporting tool, the listed categories offer adequate completeness for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 schema already fully defines the input interface (empty object). Per calibration, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none is needed, and it correctly focuses on what the tool reports rather than input details.

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 with a specific verb ("Reports") and enumerates the exact resources it covers: auth source, stored session/endpoints, thresholds, verbose/follow-up settings, and usage-cache age/cycle. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_usage (which reports usage) and set_threshold (which modifies settings).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description simply states what it reports but does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools like get_usage or set_threshold. Usage context is only implied (checking configuration status) rather than explicitly stated.

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