logic_transport

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: the action is verified via readback (MCU LEDs + Accessibility), implying post-action state confirmation. However, it omits critical operational context for an unannotated automation tool — Accessibility permission requirements, which actions route through which mechanism, and failure behavior when readback mismatches.

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?

Two tight sentences with no padding, and the distinguishing claim ('verified readback') is front-loaded. The density of unexplained jargon costs a point but the structure is efficient.

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 a 12-action enum, six undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It never explains the state/goto/set_tempo actions, what readback returns, or how position parameters are consumed — an agent cannot call this correctly without opening the schema and still guessing.

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?

Six parameters at 0% schema coverage, and the description documents none of them. It implies play/record/stop exist but says nothing about how bar/beat/tick/division/tempo relate to actions like goto or set_tempo, nor what the 'state' action does. For a 12-value action enum paired with five positional params, this leaves the caller guessing.

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?

It names the resource ('Transport') and gestures at playback actions (play/record/stop), so an agent can infer this controls Logic's transport. But the framing sentence is dominated by implementation jargon ('MCU LEDs + Accessibility') rather than a clear verb+resource statement, and it never differentiates itself from siblings like logic_keys or logic_offline that could plausibly also start/stop playback.

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 notes mechanisms ('play/record via AX press; stop via MCU or Space') but never says when to pick this tool over the other logic_* siblings, nor when not to use it. There is no decision guidance — only a hint about how two of the twelve actions are triggered.

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