arrangement_jump_marker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It lacks detail on edge cases (e.g., behavior when no markers exist or at boundaries), nor does it specify if the operation is instantaneous or animated. The tool's safety profile is not disclosed.

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 a single sentence with clear front-loading of the verb and resource. Every word is necessary and no information is redundant.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks information about return values, side effects, or error conditions (e.g., no markers present). Without output schema, the agent needs to infer behavior.

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 only provides a default and type for 'direction'. The description clarifies that +1 means next and -1 means previous, adding essential meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain behavior for other integer values.

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 clearly states the verb 'jump' and the resource 'playhead to next (+1) or previous (-1) marker'. It specifies scope 'within current arrangement', distinguishing it from sibling tools like arrangement_list or arrangement_current. This is precise and unambiguous.

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 for navigating markers but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like arrangement_select or transport_set_position. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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