Raw ReaScript call (advanced)

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 transparently reveals that pointers are returned as 'handle:N' strings valid only within the current session and must be passed back verbatim—critical for correct usage. It also implies the tool's powerful and potentially unsafe nature by calling it an 'escape hatch.' It could mention side effects or error behavior, but given the context, this is sufficient.

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 (two sentences plus an example) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place—the purpose, example, and usage directive are all included without redundancy or fluff. It is well-structured for quick consumption by an agent.

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?

Given the tool's nature as an escape hatch, the description covers essentials: how to call any function, how to handle pointers, and how to choose between this and dedicated tools. No output schema exists, so return value details are not required. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could briefly note potential error scenarios; however, that is not critical for basic usage.

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 already describes both parameters: 'func' as the function name and 'args' as positional arguments with the handle-string convention. The description echoes these details and adds a concrete example, but it does not significantly extend the schema's coverage. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds marginal value only through the example.

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 explicitly states it is an 'escape hatch' to call ANY ReaScript API function by name, and clarifies its role as a fallback when dedicated tools do not cover the operation. It includes a concrete example (CountTracks) and contrasts with the sibling reaper_* tools, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives an explicit directive: 'Prefer the dedicated reaper_* tools when one exists.' This clearly tells the agent when not to use this tool and points to alternatives. Additionally, it explains how to chain calls via handle strings, providing practical usage guidance beyond the basic directive.

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