itunes_get_selected_tracks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation by using 'Get', but doesn't disclose edge-case behavior (e.g., empty selection, whether it returns metadata or just track names, or if it interacts with the current selected state). It adds context about 'selected/highlighted' which is useful, but for a simple get, the transparency is moderate—no hidden side effects are mentioned, but also no guarantees or caveats are stated.

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, tightly focused sentence. It uses no superfluous words, directly states the resource and scope, and is front-loaded with the verb 'Get'. Every word earns its place.

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 the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely sufficient. It conveys the primary functionality and scope. The only minor omissions are explicit mention of what happens when no tracks are selected or whether the returned list includes complete metadata, but these are unlikely to mislead an agent. It's complete enough for a straightforward read operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. Per the guidelines, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist, which is appropriate. It implicitly conveys that the operation is unconditional.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('a list of tracks'), and specifies the scope ('currently selected/highlighted by the user in the Music app window'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like itunes_current_track (which gets the playing track) and playlist-specific tools. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 implies a use case (to retrieve the user's current selection in the Music app), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives or any prerequisites. For instance, it doesn't state that it should be used before operations on selected tracks, nor does it clarify that it returns an empty list if nothing is selected. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, which is adequate but not fully developed.

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