jump_to_cue_point

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, such as what happens if the index is invalid, whether playback continues, or if the cue point is selected. The description is too sparse.

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 one short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity. The sentence is clear but fails to include necessary details, making it borderline under-specified.

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 simplicity of the tool (one significant parameter, no output schema), the description should provide enough context for correct usage. It lacks explanation of what 'index' refers to and any prerequisites (e.g., listing cue points first). The description is incomplete, leaving the agent to guess.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It merely says 'at the given index' without clarifying whether index is zero-based, one-based, valid range, or relationship to cue points from list_cue_points. This adds minimal value beyond the parameter name.

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 ('jump the playhead') and the target resource ('cue point at the given index'). The verb 'jump' is specific and the resource is well-identified. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_cue_points' or 'toggle_cue_point', which could cause confusion.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing cue point) or exclusions (e.g., not for listing). Agents have no basis to decide if this is the right tool.

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