cursor_execute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses blocking/synchronous behavior and the shape of the return ('compact JSON report with diff/status context'), but says nothing about repository side effects, permissions, cost, or rate limits for a tool that runs an agent against a working directory.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. Blocking behavior and return shape are packed in efficiently without padding.

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?

For a 6-parameter execution/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It names the return format but omits side-effect scope, filesystem impact, and resume/continue session semantics that an agent would need to call it safely.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('one bounded coding task through cursor-agent CLI'), so an agent knows exactly what capability this provides. It lacks a sibling to contrast against, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It states the operation is synchronous and bounded, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or conditions under which another approach (e.g. resume, continueSession) should be preferred. Usage is only implied, not directed.

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