get_cue_points

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of transparency. It indicates a read-only operation (listing) and mentions the output includes bar positions, implying no side effects. It lacks explicit details about error handling or edge cases, but for a simple getter 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is well-structured and free of extraneous 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 absence of parameters and annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it returns (bar positions). Since an output schema exists but is not provided, the description does not need to elaborate on return format. The tool's purpose is fully captured.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty), and the description adds no unnecessary information. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which is appropriate here.

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's function: 'List all cue points (locators) with bar positions.' It uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('cue points'), and adds relevant detail (bar positions), distinguishing it from other getter tools like get_track_info or get_session_snapshot.

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 implies usage for retrieving cue point information but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide context for exclusion. However, given the straightforward nature of a getter and the lack of competing tools for cue points, it is sufficiently clear.

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