Create set navigator

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

The description discloses behavioral traits: it is hands-light, drives manage_cue recall, and optionally quantizes GO. This adds value beyond annotations, which show no read-only or destructive hints. However, more details on state persistence or side effects could improve transparency.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and functionality. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the navigator does and its usage. It covers key aspects but could explicitly mention the output COMP structure or return value.

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?

All 6 parameters have schema descriptions, and the tool description adds contextual meaning (e.g., scenes can be omitted to read existing cues, go_on_beat needs a tempo source). This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 builds a 'hands-light stage navigator' for stepping through cues, with specific UI elements (Next, Prev, Go, Index). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the QLab model and hands-light operation.

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 explicitly advises using this tool after building a control panel with manage_cue cues, and suggests using Next+Go instead of recalling by name. This provides context but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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