master_targets

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by spelling out what the returned reference data contains — integrated LUFS, tolerance and true-peak ceiling per target — which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret the payload.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the full inventory of target categories and the three per-target measurements without a wasted word. The enumeration is dense but directly load-bearing content.

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 and no parameters, the description must carry the payload description and largely does. The remaining gap is that it never says how targets are identified or referenced (e.g. the key an agent would pass to master_build_chain or master_check), which is the one thing a caller likely needs next.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level claims are made or needed.

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 names a specific resource (delivery/loudness targets) and enumerates its contents precisely — streaming platforms, podcast, broadcast standards, club convention — so an agent can tell it is a reference catalogue rather than an action tool. It falls short of 5 because there is no verb and no explicit differentiation from the close siblings master_check and master_build_chain, which also deal with mastering targets.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus master_check or master_build_chain, and no mention of it being the lookup step that supplies target values to those tools. Usage is only inferable from the word 'targets'; nothing is explicit.

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