master_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes further by disclosing the actual report contents (LU gap, peak vs ceiling, corrective gain, and flags for short capture, clipping, over-limiting, phase). With no output schema, this is exactly the missing behavioral context. It stops short of stating failure thresholds or units of the returned gain.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the pass/fail verdict, followed by the enumerated checks and the note categories. The parentheticals add useful provenance rather than filler, though the sentence is dense enough to be slightly hard to scan.

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 read-only, two-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, and report contents reasonably well. What is missing is the failure criteria — what values cause a 'fail' and how notes should be interpreted — which an agent would need to act on the verdict.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning: it constrains 'job' to a *finished* master capture and identifies the two producing calls (analysis.capture of 'master' or analysis.file of an exported mix), and frames 'target' as the ceiling/loudness standard being judged against.

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 (pass/fail check) and resource (a finished master capture) and enumerates exactly what is evaluated: loudness gap in LU, true peak vs ceiling, gain to target, and notes. It does not name a sibling to differentiate from, so it falls short of a 5, but an agent can tell this is a mastering QA evaluator rather than a capture or comparison tool.

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: run this after producing a master capture ('analysis.capture of "master", or analysis.file of an exported mix'), which tells the agent the prerequisite step. There is no explicit when-not or pointer to alternatives such as analysis_compare, so the guidance stays implicit.

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