ui_scroll_to_channel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure on its own. It states the visible effect but does not disclose whether the scroll also selects or focuses the channel, what happens for invalid channel values, whether any other UI state changes, or what the tool returns. For an unannotated tool, this is thin.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately short, but it sacrifices some semantic clarity for brevity, making it slightly less helpful than a slightly expanded version would be.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with no schema description, the description does not fully equip an agent to handle the tool correctly. It covers the basic action but omits behavioral details and parameter semantics that would clarify edge cases such as out-of-range channels or whether scrolling implies selection.

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 only parameter, 'channel', has zero schema description coverage, and the tool description adds little beyond the schema. It references 'a channel' but does not explain channel indexing, valid ranges, type conventions, or how the integer maps to a specific channel in the rack.

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 identifies a clear action ('scroll') and resource ('channel rack'), and states the intended outcome ('show a channel'). It is not a tautology and reads as a focused UI navigation operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related channel or UI tools.

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 phrase 'to show a channel' implies the use case of bringing a channel into view, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives such as channel_select or ui_open_piano_roll_for_channel. Usage context is only inferred.

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