cursor_to_project_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the cursor's final position; it does not disclose side effects such as whether the selection is preserved, whether the view scrolls, whether it affects the undo stack, or whether it is a non-destructive read-only action.

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?

A single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. The core action and target are front-loaded, and the clarification '(time 0)' is immediately useful but not verbose.

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 simple, parameterless cursor-movement tool, the description captures the essential behavior. It does not elaborate on side effects or return values, but given the low complexity and intuitive semantics, what is present is largely sufficient, with only the missing behavioral details noted above preventing a 5.

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?

With zero parameters, the input schema is already complete and there is no need for parameter documentation. The description adds useful context by clarifying the exact project start coordinate ('time 0'), which aligns with the baseline 4 for parameterless tools.

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?

States a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('cursor') with an explicit target ('start of the project (time 0)'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cursor_to_project_end, cursor_to_track_start, and raw_cursor_left, and the parenthetical clarifies the exact coordinate.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. The name and sibling list hint at differentiation, but the description does not articulate conditions or exclusions, 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.