locate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description goes well beyond these by explaining the two-clock semantics, how `present`/`beyond_source` distinguish outcomes, how partial cuts surface via `placements`/`covered`/`contiguous`, and explicitly stating 'Read-only: nothing is written.' It also explains what happens in edge cases like silence and ambiguous phrases. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but every paragraph earns its place: core purpose first, then the clock explanation, addressing modes, output semantics, and the read-only note. It is dense without redundancy. A small deduction because the path parameter's behavior is only explained in the schema, not reinforced here, though that is arguably fine given 100% schema coverage.

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 9-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the core purpose, the clock distinction, all three addressing modes, the output fields and their meanings, edge cases (partial cuts, silence, ambiguity), and the read-only nature. An agent could confidently invoke this tool correctly on the basis of this description alone.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by stating the 'one way per call' constraint (first/last XOR source_start/source_end XOR phrase), the default relationship between first/last, and how phrase mode resolves to a range with after/occurrence disambiguation. It also explains that time mode returns overlapping words or nearest neighbors in silence, which the schema doesn't convey.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('Where does a SOURCE word or SOURCE time play in the current render?') and immediately differentiates itself from its read-only mirror, cut_by_time. It also clarifies the critical two-clock distinction (Edit time vs render time) that would otherwise confuse an agent.

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 an explicit usage directive ('the tool to reach for before quoting any timestamp to a human') and names cut_by_time as its mirror, implying the read/write split. It explains why word indices and transcript times are not render times, which tells the agent when this tool is needed. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it beyond the mirror relationship, but the context is clear.

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