transport_go_to_end

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not explain what 'go to the end' entails (e.g., does it play/pause content, affect other layers, or have side effects like resetting playback?). For a tool that likely modifies transport state, this lack of detail on behavior is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, with zero wasted content.

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?

Given the complexity of a transport control tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover behavioral aspects (e.g., playback state changes), return values, or error conditions, leaving the agent with incomplete information for safe and effective use in a multimedia context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('layer' and 'time'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying what 'end' means for each layer type or how the optional 'time' parameter interacts with the action. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 ('Go to the end') and the target ('content in the specified layer'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'transport_set_time' or 'transport_skip_forward', which might also affect timeline navigation, leaving room for improvement in sibling 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'transport_set_time' for arbitrary positioning or 'transport_skip_forward' for incremental moves. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where 'go to end' is preferred, offering minimal usage direction.

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