sonic_send_cue

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It only states the action without mentioning that sending a cue may trigger code execution in Sonic Pi, whether it is fire-and-forget, or how errors are handled. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action verb, but it is under-specified, slightly lowering the score from 5.

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 absence of annotations, sparse schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far too brief to enable correct tool invocation. It lacks operational details like required context, parameter formatting, and behavioral expectations.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain 'path' and 'args'. It does not define the expected OSC path format, what arguments should look like, or how they are used. The description adds no real semantic value beyond the schema's field names.

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 'Send an external OSC cue into Sonic Pi's cue server' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sonic_run_code (executes code) or sonic_read_events (reads events). The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., Sonic Pi must be running), or alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or compare with other tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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