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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds context about what the tool returns (all version forms) and the rationale behind them. This is useful but not extensive; no mention of output format or potential edge cases.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary, then expands with concrete examples of version types, and ends with usage guidance. Each paragraph serves a distinct purpose, though it could be slightly more concise; the overall structure is effective.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the tool's purpose and when to use it. The parameter is fully documented in the schema, and annotations cover safety. However, it lacks an explicit statement of the output structure, which a tool without an output schema might be expected to provide.

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 covers the single parameter 'ref' with a description: 'Any track ref — main mix or one of its versions; the whole family is returned.' This is 100% coverage, and the tool description adds no additional parameter details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Show every form a cue can be delivered in,' which clearly states the verb (show/list) and resource (cue versions). It further elaborates with specific examples (cutdowns, alternate mixes, stems), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_tracks or get_track.

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 provides explicit use cases in the final paragraph: 'Useful when a cue is nearly right but needs to be shorter, quieter under a voice, or stripped back.' It also explains the types of versions available in context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like stye_fit_to_duration, so no exclusions are given.

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