garageband_find_menu_items

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'recursive search' but does not specify if the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. The safety profile (e.g., destructiveness) is not addressed, leaving the agent with incomplete information.

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 that conveys the core purpose without extraneous information. It could be slightly expanded to cover parameters or output, but it is not verbose. Efficiency is good for a simple tool, but given the complexity, it may be too brief.

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?

The tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description does not mention return values (e.g., menu paths) or how to use the parameters effectively. The information provided is incomplete for an AI agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone (e.g., 'enabled_only', 'top_menu'). This is insufficient for a tool with five parameters, especially since some like 'enabled_only' may not be self-explanatory.

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 states 'Search recursive GarageBand menu paths before clicking an exact path,' which clearly identifies the tool's action (search) and resource (menu paths). It differentiates from siblings like 'garageband_list_menus' and 'garageband_click_menu_search' by implying a preparatory step. However, it could be more explicit about what the search returns.

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 only hints at usage context ('before clicking an exact path') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'garageband_list_menus' or 'garageband_click_menu_search'. No when-not-to-use or sibling comparisons are given.

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