read_cue_info

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

No annotations provided; description does not disclose non-obvious behaviors like prerequisites, side effects, or idempotency. It only states it retrieves data, which is implicit from the name.

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?

Concise two short paragraphs with clear Args/Returns section. No redundant or extraneous text.

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?

Covers parameters and basic return concept, but output format is vague ('parsed cue info') and no expected keys are listed. With no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, description adds meaning: sequence_id is 'Sequence ID containing the cue', cue_id is explained with type guidance and example ('int or str for decimal cue numbers like "2.5"'). This compensates well.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read cue information for a specific cue in a sequence' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_cue_annotation or list_cues by specifying details like label, fade time, and CMD field.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. While the verb 'read' implies a safe query, no conditions or exclusions are mentioned.

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