recall_cue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the concrete side effect — sending /av/cue <name> — which is more than most, but it omits failure behavior for unknown names, whether the operation is idempotent, and whether it requires the cue to have been saved in the current session.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering action, name source, and emitted message. No filler, though the trailing OSC path detail is only marginally useful to an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the core action and parameter source. It is still thin on error conditions and preconditions for a tool that performs a state-changing dispatch.

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 compensate. It echoes the <name> placeholder and, helpfully, states where valid names originate (config/av.toml or save_cue), but it gives no format, casing, or naming constraints beyond that.

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?

"Jump to a saved cue" gives a specific action on a specific resource, and naming save_cue as the source makes the pairing with the sibling explicit. It is clear what the tool does, though "jump to" is slightly metaphorical for what is ultimately an OSC dispatch.

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?

Mentioning that cues come from config/av.toml or save_cue implies the recall-after-save workflow, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion, and no statement about what happens if the name does not exist.

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