get_api_key_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Return metadata') and includes the endpoint, but lacks details on authorization requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. The minimal information leaves gaps for the agent.

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 sentence that immediately states the purpose and includes the HTTP endpoint. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or wasted content.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (which describes the return value), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does. The endpoint reference aids understanding, and no additional context is needed for this simple retrieval operation.

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 input schema has no parameters, so description coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter meaning but correctly implies the tool requires no user-provided arguments. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 specifies the action ('Return metadata'), the resource ('configured Cursor API key'), and includes the HTTP endpoint ('GET /v1/me'). No other sibling tool seems to perform this function, making it highly distinctive.

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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is straightforward, and with no similar sibling tools, the usage context is implicitly clear but could be improved with a note about typical use cases (e.g., verifying key status).

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