Fl Goto Bar

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

The description discloses the asynchronous nature of the operation and points to fl_transport for confirmation, which is a behavioral transparency plus. However, it does not mention behavior when both bar and delta_bars are provided, nor does it address error handling or side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only partially meets it.

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 two sentences, tightly worded, with no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose (move playhead) and then adds the crucial async note, making it an exemplar of concise, well-structured documentation.

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?

The description covers the primary use cases (absolute bar, relative delta) and the asynchronous behavior with confirmation. Missing edge case handling (e.g., both parameters set or neither) and error behavior, but for a simple move operation it is largely sufficient. Not fully complete, but not severely lacking.

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 description explains that bar is 1-based and delta_bars is a delta, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema (which has no parameter descriptions). It does not specify precedence if both are provided or constraints on values, leaving some semantic gaps, but the core meaning of each parameter is covered.

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 action: moving the playhead to a bar (1-based) or by delta_bars. It distinguishes itself from fl_transport by noting asynchronous application and confirmation via fl_transport, which hints at a division of labor. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 some usage context by mentioning that FL applies the move asynchronously and that fl_transport confirms, implying a workflow where this tool initiates and fl_transport verifies. Yet it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide prerequisites, leaving the guidance implicit rather than direct.

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