jump_to_cue

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

Annotations only provide 'destructiveHint: false'. The description adds context by explaining that the direction parameter controls next (>=0) or previous (<0) jump, which is the key behavioral trait. It does not mention any side effects or success conditions, but for a simple navigation tool this is adequate.

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?

A single sentence with 22 words, front-loaded with the action verb. No superfluous text; every word earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the core functionality and the parameter's effect. No additional information is needed for correct invocation.

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 carries full burden. It explains the meaning of the 'direction' parameter: non-negative jumps to next cue, negative jumps to previous. This adds value beyond the schema, which only shows type, title, and default.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Jump' and the resource 'playhead' with specific target 'locator/cue', and differentiates between next/previous based on direction. It distinguishes from siblings like 'jump_to_locator' (which jumps to a named locator) and 'jump_by' (which jumps by time amount).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'jump_to_locator' or 'jump_by'. The description only explains the behavior based on direction, but does not provide usage context or exclusions.

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