cursor_to_project_end

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the action and adds the meaningful semantic detail that project end means total duration, not the last edited region. For a zero-parameter cursor movement, this transparently conveys the effect and likely side effects.

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?

A single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes the clarifying 'total duration' detail in a parenthetical, making the description efficient and scannable.

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 extreme simplicity (zero params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides all necessary information for an agent to invoke it correctly. The scope ('project end') is fully specified, and no further behavioral or contextual information is needed.

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 there is no schema or description burden. The baseline of 4 for paramless tools applies; the description correctly does not attempt to document parameters that do not exist.

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'), a specific resource ('cursor'), and a precise target ('end of the project'). The clarifying parenthetical '(its total duration)' removes ambiguity about what 'end' means, distinguishing it from track-end or selection-end concepts.

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 when the tool should be used: when you need the cursor at the project's end. However, it does not explicitly mention any alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as 'use cursor_set for arbitrary positions' or 'use cursor_to_track_end for track boundaries.' This is a simple tool, so the lack of explicit routing is acceptable but still leaves the guidance implicit.

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