raw_sel_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behavior: it is a static no-argument action, may open a dialog, and may change project state. This is reasonable transparency for a simple no-parameter command, though it could clarify whether the selection replaces or extends the existing selection.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The 'SelStart:' prefix is redundant with the tool name, and the instruction to 'inspect the command name first' is slightly cryptic, but overall the text is economical.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is mostly adequate. It explains the action and warns about possible dialog/state changes, but it does not specify exact selection semantics or clarify the meaning of 'inspect the command name first,' leaving some room for misinterpretation.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces the no-argument nature, which is sufficient for this tool.

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 states a clear, specific action: 'Set selection from cursor to start of track.' This makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable and distinguishes it from the broader sibling set, though it does not explicitly name nearby alternatives like raw_sel_end or select_cursor_to_track_end.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'inspect the command name first' is a caution rather than a usage criterion, and there is no mention of when a user would prefer this over raw_sel_end or cursor_to_track_start.

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