Cursor: get run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns final reply 'once it has finished', implying it may not return that field for running runs, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior like potential delay or error on non-existent run, which is minor given 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?

Single sentence, concise, and front-loaded with the key information: what it inspects and when the reply is available. No wasted words; every element 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?

The tool is a simple read operation (2 params, annotations cover safety, output schema exists). The description covers the core output aspects (status, duration, branch/PR, final reply) and timing. Given the existence of an output schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete; no major gaps for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (agentId and runId) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does aggregate that the runId identifies the run and agentId identifies the parent agent. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers parameters fully.

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 tool inspects a single run and lists the specific attributes inspected (status, duration, reported branch or PR, final reply). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cursor_list_runs (which lists runs) and cursor_inspect_runs (which likely inspects multiple runs), though it does not explicitly name them. The verb 'Inspect' and resource 'one run' provide clear purpose.

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 that this tool is for inspecting a single run, contrasting with list/inspect siblings, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives like cursor_list_runs or cursor_wait_run. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., run must exist) or when not to use (e.g., for live runs, use cursor_wait_run).

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