select_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (selects both tracks and time range) but omits any mention of side effects, such as whether the selection replaces the current selection or if it affects hidden/locked tracks. For a selection tool, this is adequate but not rich; it does not go beyond the obvious. A 3 reflects that it provides essential behavior but lacks nuance that could matter in edge cases.

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 two short sentences with no redundant wording. The key information is front-loaded ('Select all audio in all tracks') and the clarification about selecting both tracks and time range is concise. Every word 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-parameter selection tool, the description is sufficient: it states what is selected (all audio, all tracks, time range). It does not need to describe return values (none) or elaborate on side effects. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though a bit more on whether it replaces existing selection could push it to 5.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no properties). Per the rubric, 0 params receives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because there are none to explain, and it does not need to compensate for any gap.

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 states the action: 'Select all audio in all tracks' and adds 'Selects both tracks and time range.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like select_none or select_region, which select only part of the project. The verb and resource are explicit.

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 usage—when you want to select everything—but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like select_tracks or select_region, nor does it state when not to use it. Given the tool's self-evident purpose, this is an implied usage scenario rather than explicit guidance, so it earns a mid-range score.

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