raw_mixer_board

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions that it 'May open a dialog or change project state,' which warns of potential side effects, but does not specify what could be affected or how. The warning to inspect the command name is vague and does not detail consequences.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. The additional sentences about static action and possible side effects are concise, though the last instruction is slightly cryptic. Overall, every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a no-argument view switch, the description provides the core action and a warning about side effects. However, it does not explain the exact outcome (e.g., whether the view replaces the current one, if there is a return state), and the admonition to 'inspect the command name first' hints at additional complexity not elaborated.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The schema already shows no properties, and the description adds 'no-argument' which is redundant but consistent. No parameters need elaboration.

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 states a specific action ('Switch to the mixer board view') with a clear resource (mixer board). It distinguishes from other raw_* tools by naming the view, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like raw_about or raw_graphic_eq.

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?

It clearly implies the tool is for viewing the mixer board, but provides no explicit alternatives or conditions for when to use it versus other view/tool actions. The instruction 'inspect the command name first' is a caution, not usage guidance.

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