select_tracks

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 explains the 0-based track index and count, but does not disclose whether this replaces the current selection, extends it, or what happens with invalid indices. These are meaningful gaps for a selection-mutating tool.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place. The Args section cleanly explains both parameters without redundant prose.

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?

The tool is simple and the core calling semantics are present, but behavioral context is incomplete given the lack of annotations and output schema. An agent still has to guess whether selection is additive or replacing and what response to expect, so this is at the minimum viable level.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'track' is defined as the starting 0-based index and 'count' as the number of tracks to select. This adds meaning beyond the bare integer schema, though constraints on valid ranges are not described.

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 ('Select') and resource ('tracks') with an explicit selection method ('by index'). It is clearly a selection tool from the sibling family, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with track_select or other select_* tools.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like select_all, select_none, or track_select. The description implies index-based selection, but it does not state exclusions or provide context for choosing it over sibling selection tools.

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