transport

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden but only minimally describes action effects. It does not state whether playback is blocking, how loop behaves, what happens to the edit cursor on go_to, or any permissions or side effects, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the core actions before the specific play-range example. Every sentence carries useful information 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 has five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits critical context such as loop behavior, action semantics beyond the enum, and what happens during playback, leaving an agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 60%, so the schema already documents start_bar, end_bar, and start_beat. The description adds meaning by explaining that start_bar/end_bar with play lets the user hear a section, but it omits the loop parameter and adds no further detail beyond the enum values already visible in 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?

The description states specific verbs (plays, stops, pauses, moves) and a resource (edit cursor), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling tool, which would be required for a 5.

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 provides one implicit usage scenario: using play with start_bar/end_bar to hear a section (e.g., 'play bars 9 to 17'). It offers no guidance on when to use transport as opposed to alternatives like record, run_action, or set_time_selection, leaving usage largely implied.

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