jump_to_next_cue

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, error conditions, or what happens at boundaries (e.g., last cue point). Insufficient for a mutation-like action.

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 extremely concise (5 words) and front-loaded. However, it lacks any structured information beyond the action, making it efficient but not fully informative.

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 zero parameters and presence of an output schema, the description still lacks completeness. It does not define 'cue point' context, ordering, or edge-case behavior (e.g., at start/end). Output schema may cover return values, but usage context is missing.

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 the description has no burden to explain parameter meaning. The baseline is 4, and the description adequately identifies the tool's sole purpose without needing parameter details.

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 specifies 'Jump to the next cue point' – a clear verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'jump_to_prev_cue' or 'jump_to_cue_point', which have similar 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. The description lacks context for usage, leaving the agent without explicit when-to/when-not-to information.

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