Cursor: list artifacts

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful semantic context beyond those annotations: the artifact directory contains only saved files, and code changes should be looked for on the branch, not in this listing. This helps shape agent expectations 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 with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and resource, and the second adds a valuable scoping clarification. Every sentence 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?

The tool is simple: one required, fully documented parameter; strong annotations; an output schema; and a description that clearly defines what is and is not included. There are no meaningful gaps that would prevent an agent from selecting and invoking the tool 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 only parameter, agentId, is already well documented with format guidance ('bc-<uuid> form'). The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema fully carries that burden, 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List files an agent saved to its workspace artifacts directory.' It also draws a clear boundary from code changes by noting they land on the branch, which distinguishes this tool's purpose despite many sibling cursor_* tools.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: inspecting workspace artifact files. The statement 'Code changes land on the branch, not here' is an effective when-not signal, telling the agent not to expect code changes in this listing, though it does not name a specific alternative tool.

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