get_track_peak_hold

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint; the description adds real behavioral context: the value is a max since last meter reset, persists after playback stops, and is expressed in dB. It does not describe reset semantics beyond 'meters were last reset' or the exact response field name.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition, then when-to-use, args, and returns. The Args/Returns blocks are slightly verbose for two parameters but every section carries information, especially since there is no output schema.

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, the description compensates by stating the return is an object with a peak hold value in dB (though not the field key). Combined with the usage note, this is nearly complete for a simple read tool.

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 carry the load. It usefully documents channel (0=left, 1=right) with the default behavior implied, but track_index is never explained and no overall parameter guidance is given.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and clarifies the exact scope: the highest peak since meters were last reset, returned as dB. This implicitly separates it from get_track_peak (instantaneous level), but it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete usage workflow (play the project, stop, then call this for gain staging) and notes it works without active playback, which contextualizes when it beats a live meter read. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating exclusions.

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