cue_select

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action 'select a cue' without addressing whether this changes the console's active cue, whether it is reversible, or any side effects. The term 'select' implies a state change but no details are given, leaving the agent in the dark about consequences.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though the extreme brevity means it sacrifices content for length. It is not a tautology and reads naturally, so conciseness is good, but it leaves the reader wanting more detail.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'selecting' accomplishes, any required context (e.g., must a cue list be specified?), or what the return value is. Sibling tools like channel_select might provide analogous behavior, but this description alone does not give the agent enough to understand the tool's full impact or prerequisites.

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 must add meaning to the parameters. It does mention that the cue can be 'optionally within a cue list', which clarifies the cueList parameter's role and optionality. However, it does not explain the 'cue' parameter's format or semantics beyond being a cue identifier, nor does it describe the relationship between cue and cueList. The provided hint is useful but minimal, barely compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clear action (select) on a resource (cue), with an optional modifier (within a cue list). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cue_fire and cue_go, which imply execution rather than selection, so the agent can infer the difference. However, it does not specify what 'select' means (e.g., sets the active cue, for editing, etc.), leaving some ambiguity about the tool's effect.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like cue_fire and cue_go clearly relate to running cues, but the description does not explicitly state that cue_select is for setting/choosing a cue rather than firing it, nor does it mention any prerequisites or contexts. This is left wholly to inference.

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