cursor_to_track_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the core action (moving the cursor to the track start) and specifies it applies to the 'selected' track, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects (e.g., whether selection changes, playback position, or undo behavior). For a simple non-destructive action this is acceptable, but the description adds little beyond the name itself.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the action and target, contains no filler, and every word 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?

For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a simple action, the description is largely complete. It specifies the target (start of selected track) and the operation. It does not discuss prerequisites or interactions with other tools, but given its low complexity, this is not a significant gap. It could be slightly more explicit about when to use it versus the similar cursor_to_track_end, but the name already differentiates.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to describe any parameters, and the schema already confirms there are none. No additional information is needed.

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 clear verb ('move') and resource ('cursor to the start of the selected track'), which fully specifies the action. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cursor_to_track_end, cursor_to_project_start, and cursor_to_project_end by naming the exact destination. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 states the action but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It implies usage when you want to jump the cursor to the start of the current track, but it does not mention exclusions or recommend alternatives such as cursor_to_track_end. The context is clear but lacks explicit differentiation.

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