Cursor: get environment configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive flags. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by noting the dependency on a configured Cursor CLI and specifying the data fields read (candidates, source, precedence, digest). The cryptic 'Scripts stay digests' is the only weak point.

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 short and front-loaded, but the second sentence 'Scripts stay digests' is unclear and does not earn its place. It adds confusion rather than value, making the overall structure only partially effective.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained. The description covers the operation's scope and prerequisite (configured CLI), and annotations handle safety. The cryptic final phrase is the only gap; otherwise the definition is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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% and the parameter description is already detailed, clarifying how to obtain environmentPublicId from cursor_list_environments. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Read') and resource ('one environment's configuration candidates, source, precedence, and digest'), distinguishing it from list-type siblings. The phrase 'through a configured Cursor CLI' adds a prerequisite context. However, 'Scripts stay digests' is cryptic and slightly detracts from clarity.

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 use for a single environment's config, contrasting with list_environments, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, leaving routing partially to inference.

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