get_locators

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: 'Side effects: none' establishes the read-only profile, the example shows the return shape, and the edge case about Live beat-time objects serializing as floats is a genuinely useful implementation detail. It does not cover pagination or whether very large cue lists are truncated, but for a zero-argument read tool this is solid disclosure.

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?

Three short labeled segments (purpose, side effects, example, edge case) that are front-loaded and waste-free; each sentence adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 the description must carry the return contract, and it does so with a concrete example object and the float-serialization caveat. Combined with the clean side-effect statement, nothing needed to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify or compensate for on this dimension.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('Arrangement cue points') plus the payload ('names and beat times'), which cleanly separates it from the mutating cue-point siblings (create_cue_point, bulk_create_cue_points, delete_cue_point). An agent can identify it without opening any 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?

Usage is implied by 'List Arrangement cue points' and the read-only framing, but the description never says when to reach for this versus get_arrangement_clips, get_composition_structure, or the cue-point creation tools. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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