fire_cue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a specific behavioral quirk (playback-qualified address ignored on FLX S48) and provides a workaround, which goes beyond the schema. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the disclosed quirk is valuable.

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 concise, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence. The anecdote about the FLX S48 user adds credibility but is slightly verbose; still, it earns its place by providing concrete troubleshooting advice.

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 simple 2-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key behavior and a notable exception. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema covers that. The description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema already describes both parameters well, but the description adds meaningful context about the playback parameter, explaining that omitting it can be more reliable in certain cases. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 tool fires a specific cue, using a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the cue-only form and its utility, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like go_cue or set_pending_cue, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 gives practical guidance on when to omit the playback parameter, suggesting a fallback for when a cue won't fire. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, leaving the usage context implied rather than explicit.

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