ableton_search_browser

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 implies a read-only search but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it disclose side effects, permissions, or behavior on empty results. The lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loading the key verb and resource. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy or filler.

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 three parameters, an enum, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'loadable metadata' entails, the format of results, or how search logic works (e.g., fuzzy vs exact). The tool's behavior is under-specified for reliable invocation.

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 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The description adds the phrase 'loadable metadata' but does not explain individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. For the undocumented 'limit' parameter, no extra meaning is added, failing to compensate for the coverage 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 the action 'Search' and the resource 'Ableton browser items' with specific categories (presets, samples, racks, grooves, plugins, Max devices). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ableton_match_preset_intent by focusing on browser items with loadable metadata, making its purpose unique.

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, nor does it specify conditions or prerequisites. Sibling tools like ableton_match_preset_intent or ableton_list_plugins may overlap in functionality, but no differentiation or usage context is given.

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