kiosk_show_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this requires specific permissions, affects playback state, has side effects, or what happens on error (e.g., invalid index), which is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic action. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks details on behavior, error handling, or output, making it only adequate but with clear gaps in context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, aligning with the schema, and thus meets expectations without redundancy, though it could hint at implied inputs like scene index.

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 action ('Jump to') and resource ('a specific scene index in the current playlist'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'kiosk_next_scene' or 'kiosk_previous_scene', which also navigate scenes, so it lacks sibling distinction for a perfect score.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for direct scene selection versus sequential navigation with siblings, or mention prerequisites like needing a playlist to be set first, leaving usage unclear.

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