select_tracks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds the '0-based' indexing detail. It omits critical selection semantics: whether this replaces existing selections or adds to them, what happens if count exceeds available tracks, and whether the operation is idempotent or destructive.

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 appropriately brief with no wasted words. The docstring-style 'Args:' format efficiently presents parameter information, though slightly mechanical. Every sentence earns its place by conveying either the core purpose or parameter semantics.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the minimum viable information (purpose + parameter meanings). However, given the complexity of selection operations in audio editing (interaction with existing selections, track visibility, bounds checking), it lacks necessary behavioral context to be fully complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, making the Args section crucial. The description compensates effectively by documenting both parameters: 'track' is clarified as the 'Starting track index (0-based)' and 'count' as 'Number of tracks to select'. It adds the essential 0-based detail missing from the schema.

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 ('Select') and target ('tracks by index'), but fails to distinguish from similarly named sibling tools like 'track_select' and other selection tools (select_all, select_clip, etc.). An agent cannot determine when to use this multi-track selection versus single-track selection or region-based selection.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the numerous alternatives (select_all, select_region, track_select, select_clip). Given the abundance of selection tools in the sibling list, the description should explicitly state the use case for index-based multi-track selection versus other selection paradigms.

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