go_to_cue

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost no behavior: nothing about what happens if the cue is not found, whether playback resumes/starts, how the optional fadeInTime interacts with the cue's own fade, or whether the jump is immediate or queued.

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?

A single well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource and free of filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with zero required parameters, the definition leaves key questions open: behavior when neither cueName nor cueNumber is supplied, precedence when both are, and the result of a failed lookup. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents cueName, cueNumber and fadeInTime. The description only restates that lookup can be by number or name, adding no syntax, precedence (what if both are supplied), or unit detail 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?

States a specific verb (jump) plus resource (cue) and scope (currently playing cue list), with the two lookup modes named. It is clear on its own, though it never names the sequential siblings next_cue/previous_cue that an agent must choose between.

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?

Usage is only implied: jumping to an arbitrary cue contrasts with next_cue/previous_cue, but the description never says so, nor does it state the precondition that a cue list must already be playing (it only references it obliquely).

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