Ask Cursor (new chat)

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

Annotations indicate mutation and external access, and the description adds context: it uses Cursor CLI, returns stdout, explains sandbox modes (including agent-enforced but not hard boundary), and mentions streaming via watch. This provides valuable behavioral insight beyond the structured annotations.

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 concise sentences in the first paragraph, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds necessary context without redundancy. It is well-structured and efficient.

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 complexity (6 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, authentication, return behavior, and basic use. It lacks explicit error handling or timeout details, but the schema covers most parameters. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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 detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds value by noting that workspace enables context-aware answers and linking to cursor_status for auth, supplementing the schema. It does not repeat schema information unnecessarily.

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 'Ask the Cursor CLI a question or task in a NEW chat', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'cursor_continue' by emphasizing 'new chat' and mentions return value and authentication, making the purpose 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?

The description implies usage for new conversations but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. It references 'cursor_status' for auth but lacks direct comparison with 'cursor_continue'. The guidance is implied but not explicit, warranting a mid-range score.

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