garageband_window_rect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the rectangle is cached, accurate under multiple monitors, or if GarageBand must be running. Minimal transparency.

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?

A single sentence of 9 words efficiently conveys the purpose with no wasted words. Front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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, the description should explain the return format at a high level. It mentions 'rectangle' and 'macOS screen points' but does not specify the structure (e.g., coordinates, size). This gap leaves the agent guessing about the output.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema fully describes the lack of inputs. The description adds no additional meaning, but with 0 parameters the baseline is 4 according to the rubric.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'visible GarageBand window rectangle', and specifies the coordinate system 'macOS screen points'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools that perform actions like clicking or dragging.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., garageband_window_click, garageband_window_drag). No context about typical use cases or exclusions is given.

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