get_active_cue

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

The read-only behavior is already disclosed by the readOnlyHint annotation, and the description accurately reflects a read operation. It adds the context that data comes from OSC cache, which is useful, but it does not describe behaviors like cache miss handling or whether the active cue is explicit or selected.

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 that front-loads the action and returns key information. No words are wasted and the structure is immediately readable.

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 simple read-only, parameterless tool, the description covers the core purpose and output. It does not promise an output schema or detail edge cases, but given the low complexity and safe annotation, the definition is sufficiently complete.

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 description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The schema covers everything needed for invocation, satisfying the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('active cue text and completion percent'), and specifies the source ('OSC cache'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cue_select or get_console_state, which focus on different actions or state.

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 about when to call this tool versus siblings such as cue_go, cue_select, or get_console_state. The intended context is only implied by the name and description, not explicitly stated.

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