get_track_peak

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds some useful context by stating that the return value is an object with peak value in dB, but it does not clarify whether this is a momentary sample, meter value, or how it behaves during playback/stopped states.

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 short, front-loaded, and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. It loses a point because the Args section is incomplete, omitting the required parameter, though this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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 simple read-only tool with one required parameter, the description is mostly adequate but not fully complete. It explains channel and the return value, yet leaves track_index semantics and the exact shape of the returned object unspecified, especially with no output schema to compensate.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must document parameters. It explains channel meaningfully ('0=left, 1=right') but completely omits the required track_index parameter, leaving its semantics and indexing unclear.

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 begins with a specific action and resource: 'Get the current peak level of a track.' The word 'current' clearly distinguishes this from the sibling get_track_peak_hold, and the read-only nature is evident from 'Get.'

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 given on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_track_peak_hold. The description states what it does but not when an agent should choose it instead of a sibling.

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