garageband_capabilities

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a read-like operation returning data, but does not disclose side effects, rate limits, or idempotency. The term 'live' hints at dynamic state but is not elaborated.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, directly conveys purpose. Could be improved by adding brief usage guidance without increasing length significantly.

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?

No output schema; description lists returned items but does not specify their structure (e.g., is 'feature map' a JSON object? what keys?). For a meta-capability tool, agents need to understand the return format to utilize it effectively.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the only parameter 'include_live' (boolean with default true). The parameter name is somewhat self-descriptive but the tool offers no additional context, failing to compensate for the lack of schema description.

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 the tool returns specific resources: 'live feature map, safe operating loop, limits, and recipe catalog'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings which are action-oriented (e.g., garageband_loop_search, garageband_transport).

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 explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that this tool provides background context for other operations, but the description lacks direct guidance such as 'call this first to get capabilities before performing actions'.

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