raw_print

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the command 'May open a dialog or change project state,' which is valuable side-effect transparency for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. It could be more specific about what dialog or exactly how project state may change, but it does not hide the risk.

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 core purpose. The warning about dialogs and project state is placed after the main action, which is appropriate. Minor redundancy exists in the 'Print:' prefix followed by 'Print all waveforms,' but overall the description is economical and scannable.

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 the essential facts: what it does, that it takes no arguments, and that it may have side effects. It does not explain the return value or how to 'inspect the command name first,' but these are minor gaps for a simple static command wrapper.

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 input schema is an empty object, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaningful semantic value by explicitly stating this is a 'Static no-argument Audacity action,' so an agent knows no arguments should be supplied. This exceeds the baseline for zero-parameter tools because it actively rules out parameter confusion.

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 verb and resource: 'Print all waveforms in the current project.' It also categorizes the tool as a 'Static no-argument Audacity action,' which clearly distinguishes it from parameterized or exporting sibling tools. The purpose is immediately actionable.

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 when to use it: when the user wants to print all waveforms with no arguments. It also cautions that the command 'May open a dialog or change project state.' However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like raw_export_audio or project_export_audio, nor does it state conditions when another tool should be preferred.

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