cursor_to_project_end

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by clarifying that 'end of project' means 'last audio' (addressing ambiguity), but omits edge case behavior (empty projects, return values, or idempotency).

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical '(last audio)' is front-loaded with critical clarifying information, making it appropriately compact for a simple navigation tool.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the operation. It could be improved by mentioning behavior on empty projects or confirming the action is non-destructive, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema contains zero parameters. Per evaluation guidelines, tools with no parameters receive a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the schema.

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 provides a specific verb ('Move'), clear resource ('cursor'), and precise target ('end of the project'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like cursor_to_track_end and cursor_to_project_start by explicitly scoping to 'project' and defining 'end' as 'last audio'.

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?

While the description implies usage through specific naming (project-level vs track-level), it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over cursor_to_track_end or cursor_set_position. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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