list_cues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates the return type (raw console response) but says nothing about side effects, permissions, error handling, or whether it is read-only. The description lacks critical behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by parameter descriptions and return type. No unnecessary text, and the structure is front-loaded with the essential information.

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?

Given no annotations and moderate complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description fails to cover important context: what happens with invalid inputs, what the raw response format looks like, or how the 'selected executor' is established. An agent would need additional documentation to use this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description adds meaning for all three parameters: cue_id (specific ID or start of range), end_cue_id (end of range), sequence_id (sequence to list). However, it does not clarify the exact range semantics (inclusive/exclusive), what happens when only cue_id is given, or how the selected executor is determined.

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 the tool lists cues on a grandMA2 console, distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_cue' or 'goto_cue_tool'. It specifies it lists from the selected executor or a specific sequence if sequence_id is provided, which is a specific verb-resource combination.

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 when to use the tool (to list cues from an executor or sequence) but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention sibling tools like 'read_cue_info'. The usage context is clear from the purpose, but exclusions are missing.

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