raw_cursor_short_jump_right

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does warn that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is a useful side-effect disclosure. However, the warning is hedged ('may') and the instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is not actionable on its own. The word 'Static' also sits awkwardly with the side-effect warning.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, static nature, and side-effect caution, with the core purpose front-loaded. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 zero-parameter raw action with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, argument count, and side-effect risk. The main gap is that 'inspect the command name first' provides no practical method or pointer, leaving a cautious agent without a concrete next step.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'no-argument' — no further semantic burden exists.

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 the specific verb+resource pair ('Move the cursor') plus an exact quantifier ('1 second right'), which differentiates it from siblings like raw_cursor_short_jump_left and raw_cursor_long_jump_right. The mention of 'CursorShortJumpRight' as the underlying Audacity action also clarifies its role as a raw wrapper.

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 the use case — a precise one-second rightward cursor movement — but never names alternative tools or states when to prefer it over raw_cursor_right, raw_cursor_long_jump_right, or cursor_set_position. The caution to 'inspect the command name first' hints at preflight verification but doesn't explain what to inspect or how.

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