raw_shift_down

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 action 'May open a dialog or change project state,' which is valuable transparency for a mutation-style command. It does not detail exactly which dialog or state changes, but the warning is meaningful.

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: three short sentences, each contributing useful information. The behavior is stated first, followed by the no-argument nature and a safety caveat. No filler or repetition.

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-parameter raw command with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the action, the lack of arguments, and a side-effect warning. It could be slightly more complete by explaining how to choose this over sibling commands, but the simple tool shape lowers the burden.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the input. The description reinforces this with 'Static no-argument,' matching the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 identifies the action: 'Move focus downward and select the next track,' which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from raw_shift_up by direction, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like raw_next_track or raw_track_move_down.

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 it is a 'Static no-argument Audacity action' and advises to 'inspect the command name first,' but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as raw_shift_up, raw_next_track, or raw_track_move_down. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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