raw_sel_cursor_stored_cursor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add some disclosure: 'May open a dialog or change project state' warns of possible side effects. However, this is vague and hedged, and 'inspect the command name first' is not a concrete behavioral explanation. It is more transparent than nothing but still under-specified.

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 compact: two sentences front-load the core action and then add a side-effect warning. The 'SelCursorStoredCursor:' prefix is redundant with the tool name, and the final instruction is somewhat vague, but no sentence is wasted.

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 static command, the description covers the main behavior and flags potential side effects, which is mostly sufficient. It does not explain how the stored position is established or what happens if none exists, but the sibling raw_store_cursor_position and the command name fill in much of that context.

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 schema has zero parameters and the description reinforces this with 'no-argument,' so there is no parameter ambiguity. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies.

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 states the action: 'Select audio from current cursor to stored position.' This is a specific verb plus a specific selection range, and the 'stored position' qualifier distinguishes it from plain selection commands. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the core purpose is 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool rather than sibling selection or cursor-related commands such as raw_sel_start, raw_sel_end, or raw_store_cursor_position. 'Static no-argument' describes invocation but not the conditions under which this command is the right choice.

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