get_cue_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the return format (list with index, name, time) but does not state side effects (likely none), prerequisites, or edge cases such as empty lists. For a simple getter, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values, yet it still gives a high-level summary. There are no parameters or complex behaviors, so the description covers the tool's purpose and output sufficiently. It is complete for its simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none are needed. There is nothing to explain beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 'Get all cue points (locators) in the song' with a specific verb and resource. It also notes the return contents (index, name, time), which differentiates it from sibling tools like create_locator, delete_locator, and jump_to_cue. This is a precise retrieval operation with no ambiguity.

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 implies usage when the full list of cue points is needed, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks exclusion criteria. That said, the tool's purpose is self-evident and it is not easily confused with write/jump operations.

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