select_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain what 'selecting' entails—whether it changes UI state, affects subsequent operations, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this lack of detail leaves the agent guessing about its behavior and implications.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action ('Select a track'), followed by parameter details. There's no wasted text, but it could be more structured—e.g., separating usage notes from parameter explanations. The two-sentence format is efficient, though under-specified content limits its effectiveness.

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 tool's moderate complexity (one parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't leverage the output schema to hint at return values or state changes. For a tool that likely interacts with a media session (inferred from siblings like 'play' and 'record'), it should explain the context of track selection, such as affecting playback or editing focus.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema: it specifies that 'track_number' is '1-based', which clarifies the indexing convention not evident from the schema alone. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is a modest improvement. It doesn't explain valid ranges, what happens with invalid numbers, or how tracks are numbered (e.g., relative to existing tracks).

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 'Select a track' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't explain what 'selecting' means in this context (e.g., making it active for editing, highlighting it in a UI, or setting it as the current track for operations). While it mentions 'track' as the resource, the verb 'select' remains vague compared to sibling tools like 'mute_track' or 'solo_track' that clearly indicate their effects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing track), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_track' or 'arm_track'. Without context, an agent might struggle to determine if this is for navigation, activation, or preparation for other operations.

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