Cursor: inspect workspace

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those hints by specifying what is inspected and explicitly excluding repository listing, all without contradicting the 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main scope and closed with a useful negative. Every clause earns its place; there is no repetition of the title or annotations.

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 parameterless, safe, inspection tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The only completeness gap is selection guidance: it does not explain how this differs from the similarly-named cursor_whoami and cursor_list_workspace_controls tools.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the schema leaves no ambiguity. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description need not add parameter detail; the absence of explanation is acceptable.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and names concrete resources: API-key identity, entitlement, and the workspace-control surface. It also states a negative scope ('Does not list repositories'), which separates it from cursor_list_repos, but it does not differentiate itself from the overlapping cursor_whoami and cursor_list_workspace_controls siblings.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives are provided. 'Does not list repositories' gives one exclusion, but in a sibling group with cursor_whoami and cursor_list_workspace_controls, the agent is left to infer which inspection surface this tool covers versus its peers.

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