garageband_loop_select

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 states it will search and select, but does not disclose side effects such as whether it scrolls the browser, whether it requires the loops browser to be open, or what happens if the query returns no results. Parameters like `row_height` and `x_offset` hint at coordinate manipulation, but the description does not explain their behavioral 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 sentence, which is concise, but it is too brief for a tool with 5 parameters and no other documentation. It front-loads the action and resource, but fails to provide necessary detail, making it insufficiently structured for a clear understanding.

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 the absence of annotations, output schema, and the presence of 5 parameters (all undocumented), the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites (e.g., must have loops browser open), or the interplay between parameters. The description leaves significant gaps in the tool's usage 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?

The schema has zero documentation coverage for parameters. The description only hints at `query` and `index` (via 'by index'), but completely omits the purpose of `show`, `row_height`, and `x_offset`. This leaves the agent unable to understand how to properly invoke the tool, especially for positioning and visibility controls.

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 ('Search... and select'), the target resource ('GarageBand's Apple Loops browser'), and the selection mechanism ('by index'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like `garageband_loop_search` (which only searches) and `garageband_loop_drag` (which performs a drag action).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for searching and selecting a loop by index, but lacks context such as 'after performing a search, use this to pick a specific row' or 'for selecting without searching, use another tool'. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and parameters.

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