Continue Cursor chat

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the resumption logic (exact chat id from last cursor_ask, fallback to newest chat with matching cwd), how permission flags apply per invocation, and that it works after server restart. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, idempotentHint false).

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 concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the core action. The second paragraph adds necessary detail without fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 (5 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all essential behavioral aspects: resumption logic, fallback, permission per invocation, and restart resilience. It does not need to explain output schema since it exists separately.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what is already in the schema. It reiterates that sandbox takes effect, but does not provide additional details or context that enhance parameter understanding.

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 identifies the tool's action: 'continue the Cursor chat.' It uses specific verb ('continue') and resource ('Cursor chat'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like cursor_ask (which starts a new chat) and cursor_status (which shows status).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: after a cursor_ask to continue that chat. It also provides context on fallback behavior and permission handling, with an example usage scenario ('analyze read-only with cursor_ask, then continue with workspace-write'), guiding the agent on when and why to invoke this tool.

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