jump_to_cue_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose what happens on success or failure (e.g., does it stop playback? does it throw an error if the cue point is not found?). It also doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation or if it modifies state (e.g., changes the current position). The behavior is under-specified.

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 main purpose. It includes a parameter list, which is useful. However, the parameter descriptions are terse and could be more informative without adding much length. Overall, it's efficient but could be slightly more detailed.

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 (2 params, no enums, no nested objects), the description is somewhat adequate, but it lacks critical context. It doesn't explain the behavior when the cue point is not found, whether the jump is relative to the current position, or how 'next' and 'prev' are determined (e.g., in the arrangement or session view). The output schema exists but is not described, so the agent doesn't know what to expect. For a navigation tool, this is incomplete.

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 must compensate. It lists the two parameters ('direction' and 'name') with brief explanations, but the explanations are minimal. 'direction' says 'next' or 'prev' but doesn't clarify what happens if both are provided or if neither is provided. 'name' says 'Cue point name to jump to' but doesn't clarify if it's required or optional (schema shows default ''). The description adds some value but not enough to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Jump to a cue point.' It uses a specific verb ('jump') and resource ('cue point'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_cue_point' and 'delete_cue_point'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_cue_points' or other navigation tools, but the action is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., cue points must exist), nor does it explain the difference between 'next' and 'prev' in context. There is no mention of when not to use it or what happens if the cue point doesn't exist.

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