list_subtitle_cues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value: it says the tool walks the Subtitles array and derives max_duration from GetMaximumDuration, plus enumerates the exact returned fields — context that goes beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the return detail. The two sentences are dense but each carries information; the inline return enumeration is slightly verbose given it repeats the field list, but it earns its place since there is no output schema.

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 simple one-param read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the definition is nearly complete, and it compensates for the absent output schema by enumerating the return shape and per-cue fields. Only the lack of any usage guidance against siblings keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Only one parameter (asset_path) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description references asset_path in the return shape but adds no syntax, path format, or resolution detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Lists), resource (subtitle cues), and scope (all cues on a USubtitleAssetUserData). The resource is precise and distinct from the write-oriented siblings add_subtitle_cue/remove_subtitle_cue/set_subtitle_cue_*, so an agent can disambiguate without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only listing nature and the 'all cues' scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g., pointing to add/remove/set subtitle cue tools for mutation). Adequate but with a clear gap for a tool sitting among many subtitle siblings.

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