cursor_oauth_wait

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does convey that this is a blocking wait followed by a token exchange. It stays silent on what happens when the timeout elapses, whether the call polls or blocks, and whether a token is persisted or merely returned.

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 with no filler; the purpose comes first and the calling prerequisite second.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the definition should explain what a successful versus timed-out result looks like for a blocking call. The core flow is covered, but failure/timeout semantics are absent.

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 coverage is 100%, with uuid and timeoutMs both documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further detail about the uuid's provenance beyond what the schema already states.

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 concrete verb ('wait for'), the resource (OAuth browser authorization), and the side effect (exchange the token). It is clearly distinguishable from cursor_oauth_login, whose URL-opening step it explicitly follows.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: 'Call after cursor_oauth_login's URL was opened,' naming the sibling that produces the input. It does not cover the when-not case (e.g., what to do if the user never completes the flow) or alternatives on timeout.

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