raw_nyquist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the action "may open a dialog or change project state," which is meaningful transparency. However, it does not explain whether the prompt blocks for user input, what state changes are possible, or what the return behavior is, so the disclosure is only partial.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a useful caution. The repeated "Nyquist" is slightly redundant, but overall it 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 zero-argument tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and hints at side effects, which is adequate. Yet the ambiguity around whether this opens an interactive prompt, blocks the agent, or requires follow-up action leaves an important gap for an AI making the call.

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 and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies, and no parameter information is missing.

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?

States a specific action and resource: "Open the Nyquist scripting prompt." The qualifier "Static no-argument Audacity action" adds useful context, though the purpose is somewhat muted by the vague warning about dialogs and project state changes.

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 notes this is a static no-argument action and advises to "inspect the command name first," but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over any of the many raw_* siblings or when not to use it. The usage context is only implied, not articulated.

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