logic_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the input format and that input is injected into Logic, but says nothing about focus/window requirements, permission or automation-authorization needs, whether the injection is destructive or reversible, timing/rate behavior, or what a success/failure result looks like. For a tool that synthesizes arbitrary input into an external app, that is a substantial 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?

A single sentence with the label and the primary mechanism front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity is arguably too extreme for a tool whose parameters need disambiguation.

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?

With two undocumented optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only source of guidance and it leaves the dual-input contract unresolved. An agent could reasonably guess to send a chord, but would not know how to choose between chord and command or how failures surface.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it defines 'chord' by example ('cmd+shift+n') and defines 'command' as a named Logic command drawn from key_map. The critical ambiguity is left unaddressed: both parameters are optional with no stated mutual exclusivity or precedence, so an agent cannot tell whether to pass one, both, or neither, nor what happens in each case.

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?

States a concrete verb ('send') and two concrete resources ('any key chord' with a literal example 'cmd+shift+n', or 'a named Logic command'), which distinguishes it from transport/midi/tracks siblings that drive Logic through specific domains. The label 'escape hatch' clarifies it is the generic fallback rather than a domain tool. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling covers which case.

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?

'Escape hatch' implies when to reach for it (when no dedicated tool exists), and the reference to 'key_map' implies a dependency on that resource for valid command names. However there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no alternative-tool routing, and no mention of whether the target app must be focused or accessibility permissions granted.

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