garageband_ui_search_action

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as what happens with multiple matches, if the action is destructive (modifying UI state), or whether it requires special permissions. Without annotations, the description should cover these risks but does not.

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 front-loads the main purpose. While efficient, it could be slightly restructured to separate search and action steps, but it remains adequately 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?

Given no output schema and many sibling tools, the description lacks details on return values, error states (e.g., no match, multiple matches), and how it differs from similar tools like garageband_click_ui_search or garageband_ui_search_set. This leaves agents uncertain about when to use it.

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 has 6 parameters with only 17% description coverage (only 'action' has a description). The tool description adds no further detail for parameters like role, enabled_only, max_depth, allow_first. Agents must infer their meaning without help, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 tool searches visible GarageBand controls and performs an accessibility action (increment, decrement, press) on the unique match. This distinguishes it from siblings like garageband_click_ui_search which only clicks, or garageband_ui_search_details which retrieves info.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like garageband_click_ui_search or garageband_ui_search_details. It assumes the agent knows when a unique match is expected, but does not explain failure cases or prerequisites.

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