view_playback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The explicit statement that it changes only the operator's view and 'nothing about the lighting output' is a valuable, transparent side-effect guarantee. It does not disclose additional behavior like whether it persists or resets selection, but for a simple view tool this is adequate.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first states the action, the second preemptively eliminates a common misconception about side effects. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its non-effect on lighting output. The parameter is well-documented in the schema, and the description resolves the critical ambiguity about whether this alters lighting.

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 input schema already fully documents the single parameter (playback integer, with an example that Master Playback is 0), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific action ('Brings a playback into view') and the target resource ('on the console's screen'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings by explicitly noting it changes nothing about lighting output. This differentiates it from tools like set_playback_level or go_cue that affect lighting.

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?

It provides clear context: this is for viewing/selecting a playback without affecting the lighting output. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar but offers strong implied usage guidance.

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