cursor_request_async

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the async/durable behavior and polling pattern, which is valuable context beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions are present.

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 concise sentences: the first states the action, the second tells how to poll and collect. No extraneous information; it is front-loaded and efficient.

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 complexity (20 params, async, destructive), the description adequately covers starting the job and retrieving results. However, it does not mention failure modes, cancellation, or result format. The presence of sibling tools like llm_job_cancel partially mitigates this, but a bit more context would improve completeness.

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% and all 20 parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 verb 'Start' and the resource 'Cursor Agent CLI request' as a durable background job, distinguishing it from synchronous alternatives. It also tells how to retrieve results via llm_job_status and llm_job_result, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for async background requests by stating the polling pattern, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the synchronous cursor_request sibling. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given, leaving the agent to infer context.

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