Fire Eos Cue

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that return means the OSC message was sent, not that the cue finished, and that Eos provides no synchronous acknowledgement. This is significant because the tool is marked destructive/readOnly=false, and the async caveat helps set correct expectations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then organized into Args, Returns, and Example sections. It is concise and every section contributes useful information, though the Args section somewhat duplicates the schema.

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 two-parameter tool, the description is complete: it explains the action, its sequencing flexibility, the return value, the asynchronous nature, suggests a follow-up tool, and provides an example. Given the schema and annotations, no critical context is missing.

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 covers both parameters thoroughly, including examples for cue_number. The description largely repeats this information, adding only the 'numbered part' clarification and a worked example, which is marginal value over 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 uses the specific verb 'Fire' with the resource 'specific cue' and clarifies that it works 'regardless of playback sequence,' which differentiates it from sequential tools like eos_go or selection tools like eos_select_cue. It clearly states what the tool does and its distinctive out-of-order capability.

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 notes when to use the tool ('works even if it's out of order') and recommends eos_get_status afterward to verify playback position. It does not explicitly name alternatives like eos_go for sequential playback, so it lacks full exclusion guidance, but the context is clear.

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