clyphx_browser_load

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic operation. It does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing clips), error conditions (e.g., track out of range, item not found), or requirements (e.g., Live must be open).

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, one for parameter details. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary words. Could be slightly more compact, but overall 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 the presence of an output schema (unknown content), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks important context such as prerequisites (Live running), error handling, and how 'via ClyphX' affects usage. Many sibling ClyphX tools exist, so the agent would benefit from more context.

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 compensates somewhat: it clarifies track is 1-based integer, item_type has three enum values (DEV, SAMPLE, CLIP), and name is the item name/path. However, it does not specify the exact path format or how to locate items in the browser.

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 ('load an item') and the resource ('from Live's browser onto a track'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying browser loading via ClyphX, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like load_device.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., Live must be running, browser must contain items), or situations where it should not be used. The description only lists parameters.

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