cursor_to_project_start

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 specifying '(time 0)' as the destination, but lacks operational details such as idempotency, undo behavior, or prerequisites (e.g., whether a project must be open).

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 zero waste. Every word earns its place: 'Move' (action), 'cursor' (object), 'start of the project' (destination), '(time 0)' (disambiguation).

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 trivial complexity (zero parameters, no output schema, simple cursor operation), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the action and destination clearly, though it could optionally clarify playback implications or project state requirements.

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 has zero parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately requires no additional parameter explanation since the tool accepts no arguments.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') with clear resource ('the cursor') and scope ('start of the project'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like cursor_to_project_end and cursor_to_track_start by explicitly specifying 'project' and '(time 0)'.

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' vs 'track', 'start' vs 'end'), it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus the more general cursor_set_position or alternatives. No 'when-not' or comparative guidance is provided.

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