Cursor: get workspace control

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds the key behavioral nuance: supported controls fetch live data; others return a 'capability result' (a stubbed or metadata response). This is valuable beyond 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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the critical behavior in a second clause. No fluff, every word earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is almost complete. Missing aspects: which controls are 'supported' vs. not is not enumerated (but the enum gives the list). It's adequate for the task; slight gap on specifying what 'capability result' means in practice.

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%, so the parameter 'control' is well-documented in the schema with an enum. The description adds a high-level note about live vs. capability but doesn't explain each enum value or their semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does most of the lifting.

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?

Description states a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('workspace or account control'). It distinguishes supported controls (fetch live) from unsupported (capability result). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cursor_list_workspace_controls or cursor_whoami, which are more specialized; this is mostly clear but slightly generic.

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 when to use it: for reading a single control, with qualification about supported vs. capability results. It doesn't mention when NOT to use it (e.g., for listing all controls use cursor_list_workspace_controls). No explicit alternatives are named, but context suggests this is a generic read with a control enum that guides selection.

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