Diagnose why a Cakewalk command reports no effect by separating three causes and identifying when the limitation is specific to this adapter.
Why a command can report "nothing happened", with how to tell the three causes apart. Only one of them is a limit of this adapter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the content shape (three distinguishable causes, one being an adapter limit), which is genuine value, but it doesn't state that the tool is a read-only/costless lookup or what the response looks like, leaving the behavioral profile partially opaque.
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 zero filler, and the core framing (why 'nothing happened', three causes, one is an adapter limit) is front-loaded. Every clause 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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry the explanation, and it supplies a useful summary of what the tool covers. It falls short of stating the return shape (a list of causes with differentiation?), but is adequate for a zero-parameter help topic.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies; no parameter-level gaps exist.
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 identifies a specific resource – the causes of a command reporting 'nothing happened' – and clarifies that three causes exist with only one being an adapter limitation. It's a diagnostic/explanation tool, which an agent can infer, though the description never explicitly frames it as an explanatory lookup versus an action tool alongside siblings like cw_doctor or cw_command_evidence.
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?
Usage is implied (troubleshooting when a command appears to do nothing) but never stated. There is no explicit guidance on when to reach for this versus cw_doctor, cw_command_evidence, or cw_command_support, all of which plausibly overlap with no-effect diagnosis.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.