cursor_inbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: no network, pure filesystem, default directory ~/.cursor-mcp/inbox/, and the polling/read/ack cycle. It covers operational aspects like setting `CURSOR_INBOX_DIR` and purging old messages.

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?

Every sentence is purposeful: the first sentence states the purpose, then a summary of operations, a typical flow bullet list, and implementation details. No wasted words, front-loaded with the most critical information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, multiple operations, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers setup, usage patterns, and operational boundaries. It explains when each operation is appropriate and the technical environment, leaving no major gaps.

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?

All 11 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the flow (e.g., using `msg_id` for read/ack, `older_than_days` for purge) and the purpose of `tags` and `payload`, but the schema already defines these well.

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 identifies the tool as an 'Inter-agent message drop for Cursor agents' and lists the specific operations (post, list, read, ack, purge). It distinguishes from sibling tools which cover cloud, docs, help, SDK, and usage.

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 provides a typical usage flow, specifying when to call each operation (e.g., 'post' for heads-up, 'list' at task start, 'read' for detail, 'ack' when handled, 'purge' for cleanup). It explains the context (filesystem-based, no daemon) and the environment variable override.

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