export_selected_track

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 discloses key behavioral traits: GUI automation method, platform restriction ('macOS only'), and permission requirements ('Accessibility permissions for Terminal/Python'). However, it lacks details on what gets exported (e.g., file format, content), potential side effects, error handling, or performance implications like timeouts.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by important notes and parameter/return details. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second covers critical constraints, and the last two explain inputs/outputs. Minor improvements could include bullet points for clarity.

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 complexity (GUI automation with permissions) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, constraints, and parameter semantics, and an output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, it lacks details on export specifics (e.g., format, range) and error scenarios, which could hinder agent usage.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'output_folder' by stating 'Where to save the exported file', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's title 'Output Folder'. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates adequately. However, it doesn't specify allowed paths or constraints beyond the default.

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 action ('Export') and target resource ('currently selected track'), and specifies the method ('using GUI automation'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'prepare_track_for_export' by focusing on execution rather than preparation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'set_export_range' might relate to export configuration).

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 some context with 'IMPORTANT: Requires Accessibility permissions for Terminal/Python. macOS only.' and implies usage when a track is selected. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'prepare_track_for_export' or 'set_export_range', nor does it mention prerequisites like needing to select a track first using 'select_track_by_index'.

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