List cues of sequences

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

Without annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the 20-sequence cap, the playback state machine (active, currentCue {no, name} while playing, lastCue after Off) and a bridge version requirement. It does not state pagination behavior for limit/offset or any read-only/permission expectations.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The trailing parenthetical of domain jargon (TrigType, TrigTime, bridge 0.32.0) makes it dense but each element carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so describing the returned cue fields and playback shape is essential and the description does exactly that. The remaining gap is pagination semantics for the limit/offset parameters on a tool that can span up to 20 sequences.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds real meaning beyond it by giving the mutual exclusivity and maximum cardinality for 'sequences' ('up to 20') and by tying 'sequence' to a single read. It says nothing about limit, offset, fields or data_pool, which are left to the schema.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('List the cues of one sequence ... or several') and enumerates the returned fields (cue number, name, trigger, command, playback state), so an agent can distinguish it from gma3_cue_contents or gma3_store_cue without opening the schema.

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 implies read usage and clarifies that 'sequences' is used 'instead of sequence', which is useful parameter-level routing, but it never names alternatives such as gma3_cue_contents or says when a caller should prefer one over the other.

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