go_cue

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral nuance: the server cannot know which playback is active when playback is omitted. This adds valuable context about potential ambiguity. It does not discuss side effects or reversibility, but for a simple Go action this is reasonable.

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: the first states the core action, the second provides a concise caveat about playback selection. It is front-loaded, efficient, and free of fluff.

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 optional parameter and an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the main behavior and the key edge case of omitted playback. It does not describe return values, but that is not required when an output schema exists. Minor gaps like error handling are not critical for this simple action.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter. The description enhances the schema by explaining why omitting playback is risky and that providing it is safer. This adds meaningful context beyond the structured definition.

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's action: 'Presses Go, advancing to the next cue.' This is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate, but the action of pressing Go to advance to the next cue is distinct from sibling tools like fire_cue, which likely targets a specific cue.

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 explicit usage guidance for the playback parameter: when omitted, it uses the console's current active playback, and it recommends naming the playback as the safer choice. It does not, however, discuss when to choose this tool over siblings like fire_cue.

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