marker_go_to

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic action. It does not disclose what happens if the marker number is invalid, whether the cursor movement is animated, or if it affects playback. The behavioral footprint is under-described.

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?

Extremely concise with two sentences. The key information is front-loaded. 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about error handling (e.g., if marker number is out of range) and whether the tool scrolls the view. For a navigation command, more context would be helpful.

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 parameter `marker_number` has schema coverage 0%, but the description adds '1-based marker number', which clarifies indexing beyond the schema's type-only specification. This provides essential semantic context.

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 it moves the cursor to a marker, which is a specific action on a specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like marker_add or marker_delete, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from marker_get_all or transport_set_position.

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 such as transport_set_position or marker_get_all. No context about prerequisites or common use cases.

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