transport_rewind_start

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

The core behavior is disclosed, but no annotations exist and the description does not state whether playback stops, whether selection is preserved, or how the command behaves during active playback. For a simple cursor-move command this is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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 declarative sentence with a front-loaded verb and target, no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter command with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential action. It lacks side-effect details and sibling differentiation, but nothing needed to construct a valid call is missing.

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 the schema is empty and there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the action itself. The baseline of 4 applies.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: moving the playback cursor to the start of the project. It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate from the close sibling cursor_to_project_start, which plausibly performs the same action.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus transport_play_stop, cursor_to_project_start, or other transport commands. The context is implied at best.

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