select_cursor_to_track_end

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the action (selecting a range based on cursor position) and the target (end of track), but it does not mention whether the existing selection is replaced, extended, or how the tool behaves if there is no active cursor position.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word adds meaning.

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 command with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it defines the start point, end point, and action. It could be improved by explicitly noting that it operates on the current track and that the selection replaces the prior selection, but those are minor gaps for this simple operation.

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 does not need to explain parameter details; the phrase 'current cursor position' and 'end of the track' already anchors the semantic context for the no-parameter invocation.

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 specific verb (select), a specific resource (from the current cursor position to the end of the track), and the scope of the selection. It clearly differentiates from siblings like cursor_to_track_end and select_clip by describing the exact range being selected.

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 usage context is implied by the phrase 'from the current cursor position to the end of the track,' so an agent can infer when this should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, e.g., when needing to select to the start of the track or select a clip.

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