logic_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about safety or side effects. Notably press_menu actually triggers menu actions (a mutation) and is presented identically to read-only actions like health or ax_dump, with no distinction of reversibility, permissions, or side effects.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler, but it reads as a run-on category list rather than a structured capability summary, and it omits several actions in the enum (key_map, app, windows).

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 10-action dispatcher with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what most actions return or do, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it beyond the few hinted actions.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the `path` parameter with a concrete example (['Track','New Audio Track']) and says nothing about role, depth, contains, max_nodes, or window, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 enumerates capability categories (health, permissions, MIDI ports, menu bar, accessibility exploration) for 'Logic's UI', which gives a rough sense of scope, but it never states a specific verb+resource for the tool as a whole. It also fails to differentiate from siblings like logic_midi (MIDI ports) or logic_keys (key_map), which overlap with actions exposed here.

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 dispatcher versus the many sibling tools, and no exclusions. The parentheticals hint at how to call menu/press_menu and ax_dump/ax_find, but no selection criteria are given.

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