event_playback_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only check (no side effects implied) and mentions it returns status and playhead position. However, it doesn't detail the exact return format or any potential edge cases (e.g., what happens if the event doesn't exist).

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clear usage hint and parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value, and the Args section is appropriately brief.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, the parameter format, and the use case. It could be improved by mentioning what the return value looks like, but the lack of an output schema makes that less critical.

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 schema has only one parameter (target) with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying the format: 'event:// path or {guid}'. This is helpful but minimal; it doesn't explain the difference between the two formats or provide examples.

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 tool checks playback status (playing/paused/stopping) and timeline playhead position for an event instance. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like event_play, event_stop, and event_toggle_pause by focusing on status validation rather than control.

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?

The description explicitly says to use this tool to validate that a play/stop/pause call actually took effect, providing clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough given the sibling tool names.

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