cursor_to_project_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states the operation and exact destination (cursor moves to project start at t=0). For a zero-parameter, non-destructive cursor positioning tool, this is adequate transparency, though it does not mention any potential side effects like selection or playback state.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the essential information. Every word contributes meaning, and the 't=0' clarification adds precision without bloat.

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 parameterless, simple cursor movement tool with no output schema, the description contains all necessary operational information. The destination is unambiguous, and the sibling list provides enough surrounding context to disambiguate from other cursor-related tools.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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?

Describes a specific action ('Move the cursor') with a clear resource and destination ('very start of the project (t=0)'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like cursor_to_project_end, cursor_to_track_start, and cursor_to_track_end.

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 intended use is implied by the action itself, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives such as cursor_set, cursor_to_track_start, or cursor_to_project_end. Context for choosing this tool comes mainly from the tool name and sibling list rather than the description.

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