get_cue_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states it 'gets all cue points' but does not mention that it is non-destructive, any rate limits, or performance implications. The description lacks sufficient behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to clarity.

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?

While the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description could still mention context like session must be open or that it returns a list. Given the numerous sibling tools, a bit more context (e.g., 'Use get_cue_points to inspect all cue points') would improve completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the return content ('name + time pairs'), which goes beyond the empty input schema. This helps the agent understand what the tool provides.

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 'Get all cue points in the session (name + time pairs)' clearly states the action (Get), object (cue points), scope (all in session), and content (name + time pairs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like jump_to_cue_point or set_or_delete_cue which have different purposes.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jump_to_cue_point or set_or_delete_cue. The description only states what it does without providing context on prerequisites or usage scenarios.

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