list_arrangement_cue_points

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a minor behavioral detail (stable IDs) which is useful but not critical. It doesn't contradict annotations, but also doesn't disclose anything significant beyond what annotations imply.

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, compact sentence that leads with the verb and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning—there is no fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 zero-parameter read-only list operation, the description is complete. It mentions the key output aspects (stable IDs and beat positions) and relies on annotations for the safety profile. There is no output schema, and nothing else an agent needs to know to call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. It correctly omits param information, keeping the description focused on purpose and output content.

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 states a precise action (List) and a specific resource (Arrangement cue points). It adds relevant output detail ('stable IDs and beat positions'), which clarifies what the data contains. Sibling tools like create_arrangement_cue_point and rename_arrangement_cue_point make clear this is the read-only listing counterpart.

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 clearly implies use for retrieving all arrangement cue points. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but given that it's a zero-parameter read-only list tool and siblings handle mutation/jumping, the intended usage is obvious. A fully explicit exclusion isn't necessary here.

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