go_to_bar

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

The description only states it navigates to a bar and returns success status. It does not disclose what happens if the bar number is invalid, whether it changes the playback position, or any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description should carry this burden but fails to do so adequately.

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 extremely concise, with no extraneous words. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the action and describing the argument and return value. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 navigation tool with one parameter, the description is adequate. However, it lacks details on error behavior (e.g., if bar number exceeds total bars) and does not specify the return value format beyond 'success status'. Given the simplicity, it meets minimum viability but has room for improvement.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It adds that bar_number is 1-based, which is important and not implied by the schema. However, it does not provide further context like valid range or relationship to the score's structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the simple parameter.

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 ('Navigate to') and the resource ('a specific bar in the score'). It distinguishes this tool from the many sibling tools that deal with editing, analysis, or playback, as it is a straightforward navigation command.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling tools are mostly for editing and analysis, the description does not explicitly state that this is for changing the current view or cursor position, nor does it mention any prerequisites or caveats.

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