go_to_end

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about requiring an open/active sequence, whether it seeks the end of the timeline vs. the last clip, or what happens with no active sequence. For a zero-risk navigation command the gap is not severe, but the disclosure is thin.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded in the verb.

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?

The tool is structurally simple (no params, no output schema, no annotations), but the description omits the key operating context — that it acts on the active sequence — which matters in a toolset with 130+ siblings covering multiple sequence and playhead targets.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for parameterless tools 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move the playhead') with a definite target ('the end of the sequence'), so an agent can tell it apart from go_to_start or set_playhead. It never names which sequence (the active one) it operates on, leaving that to inference.

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 usage is only implied by the name and the phrase 'end of the sequence'; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and the obvious alternatives (go_to_out_point, go_to_start, set_playhead) are never mentioned.

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