jump_to_cue_point

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

The description indicates the tool navigates to a cue point, which is a simple behavior. No side effects, prerequisites (e.g., need for existing cue points), or interaction with playback state are disclosed. With no annotations, this is acceptable but minimal.

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 very concise with two sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and lists parameter details immediately. No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and an output schema exists (not shown), so the description does not need to detail return values. However, the lack of usage guidelines and the parameter type contradiction reduce completeness. Adequate for a basic tool but with notable gaps.

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 description adds meaning by stating the parameter can be either a name (string) or index (number), but this contradicts the schema which defines the parameter as type 'string'. Given 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify the actual accepted types without contradiction. The added semantics are partially helpful but inaccurate.

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 to a cue point') and the resource ('cue point') with specific differentiation from sibling tools like jump_to_prev_cue and jump_to_next_cue, which perform relative navigation. It also specifies the input types (name or index), making the purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not clarify that this is for absolute jumps, while siblings are for relative jumps. The agent is left to infer context from the name and sibling list.

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