select_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Select a scene' and does not disclose side effects, whether the selection triggers playback, what UI state changes, or error conditions. This is a significant transparency gap for a selection tool in a DAW context.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler words. The parameter line is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it still serves as a minimal explanation. It is concise rather than verbose, though it sacrifices useful detail.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify whether selecting a scene is purely a UI action or has playback implications, and it does not relate to sibling scene commands. An agent could easily confuse it with fire_scene.

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 0% description coverage, and the only parameter help is 'The index of the scene to select', which mostly restates the parameter name and adds no specifics about indexing (zero-based vs one-based), valid range, or behavior for invalid indices. The description only minimally compensates for the schema 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 states the verb and resource ('Select a scene'), but it essentially restates the tool name and provides no semantic detail about what selecting a scene means in the host environment. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like fire_scene or stop_scene beyond the literal verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain whether to use this before firing a scene, or contrast with fire_scene, select_track, or select_clip. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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