cursor_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral-disclosure burden. It usefully explains the three credential sources (CURSOR_API_KEY, key file, cached OAuth token), but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether it validates credentials, or what status values it returns.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by useful credential-source context. There is no wasted language.

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 simple zero-parameter status tool, the description covers the core purpose and credential origins. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, it could say more about what the reported status looks like or whether it verifies credentials, leaving some ambiguity for an agent interpreting results.

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 there is no parameter semantics burden. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately avoids unnecessary parameter discussion.

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 states a specific action and resource: "Report Cursor login/token status." This distinguishes it from the sibling cursor_oauth_login, which implies initiating login, though the distinction is not made explicit. An agent can reasonably infer this is a status-checking tool.

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?

Usage is implied by "Report Cursor login/token status," suggesting the tool should be used to check authentication state. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use it instead of cursor_oauth_login or cursor_oauth_wait, nor does it mention prerequisites or follow-up actions.

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