garageband_ui_search_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns rich accessibility details and operates on visible controls, but does not mention read-only nature, performance implications, or any side effects.

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, clear sentence that conveys purpose and output. It is not overly verbose, though it could be more structured by separating parameter guidance.

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 five undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It only covers the tool's general purpose and return type, leaving agents without sufficient information to invoke correctly.

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 of the five parameters (query, role, enabled_only, max_depth, allow_first). The agent has no guidance on their meaning or usage.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'visible GarageBand controls', and specifies the rich details returned (actions, attributes, bounds, geometry, value). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on comprehensive accessibility details.

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 implies usage for retrieving detailed accessibility information from visible controls, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like garageband_ui_search_action or garageband_find_ui_elements.

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