garageband_click_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action, omitting details like prerequisites (e.g., menu must be visible), error handling for invalid paths, or whether the tool waits for the menu to appear.

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, front-loaded sentence that delivers all necessary information without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks context on return values, side effects, or success criteria, which would help an agent use it more confidently despite the simple action.

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 schema provides no description for the 'path' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining that the path uses a '>' separator and providing two realistic examples, clarifying the expected format beyond the raw string type.

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 action ('Click a menu item by path') and provides concrete examples ('File > Open...', 'View > Show Loop Browser'). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like garageband_click_ui or garageband_click_ui_path, which target UI elements rather than menu items.

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 no indication of when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. With many sibling tools for different click actions, such guidance is critical but absent.

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