cavalry_playback_control

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

The description discloses that the tool operates on the 'active viewport', which is a useful behavioral constraint beyond the input schema. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose whether the tool is destructive (e.g., rewind could reset state), has side effects on UI state, or requires specific permissions. The description is adequate but lacks depth for a control 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, short sentence that front-loads the purpose and scope. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete for basic use. However, it lacks details on return value (e.g., does it return success?), prerequisites (viewport must be active), or behavior edge cases (e.g., what happens if playback is already stopped?). The absence of annotations further limits completeness.

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 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it lists the actions but does not clarify their exact behavior (e.g., does 'rewind' go to frame 0 or a previous marker?). The enum is self-documenting, so this is acceptable.

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 verb 'controls' and the resource 'timeline playback', and lists the specific actions (play, stop, rewind) and scope ('in the active viewport'). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like `cavalry_set_frame`, `cavalry_delete_layer`, or `cavalry_run_script`, which have different purposes.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to control playback) and the active viewport context, but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For example, it does not mention that the viewport must be open or that the tool has no effect during rendering.

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