garageband_self_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only notes the test is non-destructive and generates MIDI/screenshot artifacts but omits details like authorization needs, potential side effects, or what happens to existing files.

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 fluff. However, it could be restructured to front-load key info better, but still concise.

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?

Without output schema and with 5 undocumented parameters, the description leaves many gaps. An agent cannot understand what the tool returns, error handling, or how parameters influence behavior.

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%, yet the description does not explain any parameter meaning. For example, it does not clarify that 'output_dir' sets artifact location or that 'include_screenshot' controls screenshot generation. This is a critical gap.

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 a specific verb ('Run a non-destructive bridge health check') and resource ('bridge'), and it distinguishes itself from other GarageBand tools by focusing on a health check and artifact generation, not covered by siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other diagnostic or testing tools. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions for use.

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