cw_locate

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full load — and it discloses the single decisive behavioral fact: the tool is undispatchable on this SONAR build. It does not state what an actual call returns or which error surfaces, which is what separates it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with capability, then blocker, then alternatives — zero filler. Minor deduction because "CakeScript (T1)" introduces an undefined internal term the agent must guess at.

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 single-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, everything an agent needs in order to not misuse it is present. Return/error behavior after a failed dispatch is the one remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it gives an example value ("1:01:000") that implies a bars:beats:ticks layout but never names the components, valid ranges, or padding rules. That is partial compensation, not full.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ("Move the now-time to a Bars/Beats position") with a literal position example, and explicitly separates it from cw_navigate (measure-level moves) and cw_convert (position→ticks). The only thing keeping this from a 5 is that the very next clause declares the tool non-dispatchable on this build, so its stated purpose is somewhat hypothetical.

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?

Explicitly says when NOT to use it ("NEEDS CakeScript (T1), which this SONAR build cannot dispatch"), notes no menu command performs an absolute jump, and routes to the two correct alternatives with their exact semantics. An agent never needs to open a schema to decide.

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