channel_select

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does mention 'leaves command line unterminated,' which is a key behavioral note, but it leaves significant gaps: it doesn't state whether selection is temporary or persistent, whether it overwrites any current selection, whether the command line is cleared or appended, or what side effects occur. For a tool that modifies console state, this is incomplete. The description gives some insight but not enough for an agent to predict the full impact.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It states the action and a critical behavioral note in a compact way. This is efficient and front-loaded with the most important information. It earns a high score for brevity and clarity.

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 that this is a simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is expected to be brief. However, it lacks critical context such as the format of the channel value (e.g., integer only? ranges?), and the implications of the command line being unterminated (e.g., does the agent need to then send another command? Is the command line pending?). With no annotation safety hints and no parameter semantics, an agent is left guessing about side effects. The description is too sparse to be fully usable in practice.

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%, meaning the schema only provides the type (integer) and bounds. The description does not explain what 'channel' refers to (e.g., channel number, range, or syntax) or how it should be formatted. Since there is no extra context, the parameter's meaning is entirely undefined. The description adds zero value beyond the schema's bare type definition, which is insufficient for an agent to know how to set the value correctly.

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 verb (Select), the resource (an Eos channel), and an important behavior ('leaves command line unterminated'). This is a specific and meaningful definition that distinguishes it from other sibling tools like channel_set_level or channel_set_dmx, which would not leave the command line open. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implicitly indicates that this tool is for selecting a channel in preparation for further commands (since it leaves the command line unterminated). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus channel_set_level, channel_set_dmx, or cue_select. It lacks a clear 'use this if you need to start a command line' directive and doesn't mention alternatives. The behavior of leaving the command line open is a hint, but not explicit guidance.

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