navigate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important traits: start/end move the viewport (not the caret) and 'bar' is unsupported due to an API limitation (Edit.GoTo dialog field). These are meaningful beyond the schema, though additional details like error behavior for 'bar' or return behavior are absent.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured: a short opening line states the purpose, followed by clear parameter definitions and a brief note on limitations. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple navigation tool, the description covers the main caveats (viewport vs caret, bar unsupported). An output schema exists, so return values are covered. It lacks details on error handling for unsupported targets, but given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: target takes 'start', 'end', or 'bar', and bar is a 1-indexed bar number only meaningful with target='bar'. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more explicit about the exact behavior of start/end.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb+resource: 'Move around the score.' It distinguishes from sibling tools (like add_notes, transpose, playback) by focusing on navigation, and further specifies it affects the viewport rather than the caret, making its role unambiguous.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool and explicitly excludes the 'bar' target, noting it is not yet supported. It also clarifies that start/end move the viewport, not the caret, which aids decision-making. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance beyond the 'bar' limitation.

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