select

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description still adds real context: the effect is user-visible ('so the user sees what you are working on') and the no-arg path is a read of the current selection/view. It does not discuss persistence or interaction with an open set, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and purpose, and every sentence carries information. The first sentence is dense with nested parentheses and semicolons, which slightly hurts scanability.

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?

With no output schema, five parameters at 0% schema coverage, and only safety annotations, the description supplies the selectable targets, the constraint between slot and scene, the view enum, and the no-arg return behavior. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 carries the load and mostly succeeds: it defines slot as a clip slot of `track`, device as index/name/rack path (explaining the array form), and lists the allowed view strings. It does not explain acceptable forms of `scene` or `track` beyond inference from context, leaving a small 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?

Names a specific verb (Select) and enumerates the exact resources: a track, scene, clip slot, device, or a view. An agent immediately knows this drives Live's UI focus. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like set_track or get_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives a concrete usage constraint ('Pass slot or scene, not both') and documents the zero-argument behavior (returns current selection and focused view). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming of alternative tools, so it is clear but not complete.

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