raw_track_pan_right

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 does warn that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which adds some transparency about side effects. However, it does not specify what dialog, under what conditions, or the nature of state changes, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 concise at two sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose in the first sentence and adds a relevant caution in the second. No unnecessary words are present, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple no-argument action, the description covers the core function and warns about potential side effects. Since there is no output schema, explaining return values is unnecessary. The main gap is the vague 'inspect the command name first,' which could confuse an agent rather than clarify, but overall it's reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

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, so the description need not explain parameter meanings. The schema is empty with 100% coverage (trivially). According to the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds value by clarifying the operation is a static no-argument action.

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: 'Pan the focused track to the right.' It clearly identifies the resource (focused track) and the direction, distinguishing it from siblings like raw_track_pan_left and raw_track_pan. The term 'Static no-argument Audacity action' further clarifies the nature.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings exist such as raw_track_pan_left and raw_track_pan, the description does not mention them or provide criteria for selection. The caution to 'inspect the command name first' is vague and does not aid in when-to-use decisions.

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