List cues of a sequence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read but never states that it is non-mutating, says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset existing, and does not describe what happens when the sequence is unknown or the property list is invalid.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the resource and the returned properties are stated immediately. It is efficient rather than padded, though the single sentence leaves no room for the routing or pagination details an agent would want.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented half of the parameter set, this description is too thin for a 4-parameter tool. An agent still cannot tell whether results are paged, how many cues come back per call, or how the tool relates to gma3_cue_contents and gma3_sequences.

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 50%: 'sequence' (number or name) and 'fields' (with its default list) are documented, while 'limit' and 'offset' are bare. The description's mention of cue number, name, trigger and timing roughly mirrors the default fields set, adding mild value, but it never explains the pagination parameters the schema leaves undocumented.

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 ('List the cues of a sequence') and names the properties returned (cue number, name, trigger, timing), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as gma3_sequences (lists sequences) or gma3_cue_contents (cue detail), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. sequence must exist), and no named alternative for retrieving cue data. The agent is left to infer that this is the browse-level tool versus gma3_cue_contents or gma3_get_object.

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