cursor_to_track_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the primary action but omits behavioral details such as whether this affects playback position immediately, what happens if no track is selected, or whether the operation is undoable/reversible.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, zero redundancy. Every word earns its place in describing exactly what the tool does without extraneous formatting or filler.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, straightforward cursor navigation), the description is adequate. It could be improved by mentioning the prerequisite of having a track selected, but the core functionality is fully captured.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds valuable context by referencing the 'selected track,' indicating the tool operates on implicit UI state rather than a passed parameter, which compensates for the empty input 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'), resource ('cursor'), and precise location ('start of the selected track'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'cursor_to_project_start' (track vs project scope) and 'cursor_to_track_end' (start vs end) through the explicit scope limitation.

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 description implies usage by specifying 'selected track' (distinguishing it from project-level cursor tools), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'cursor_to_project_start' or 'cursor_set_position', nor does it mention prerequisites like having a track selected.

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