mastering_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Runs as a job' and 'restore', but it does not clarify whether the operation is destructive, whether the bypass is temporary, or what side effects occur on the session. The term 'restore' implies reversion, but it is not explicit, and there is no mention of permissions or reversibility.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately lists the analytical outputs. Every clause adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and expected outputs, and the presence of an output schema helps. However, it lacks guidance on when to invoke this tool versus siblings, and it does not clarify the exact side effects or prerequisites (e.g., whether a master bus must exist). For a job-based tool with no parameters, this is a notable gap.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. Per calibration, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist; the description does not attempt to explain nonexistent inputs and stays focused on behavior and outputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Bypass'), names the resource ('master's limiter / compressors'), and details the exact outputs ('loudness added, crest and punch lost, whether the level is earned...'). It clearly differentiates from generic tools like 'measure' or 'compare' by specifying its unique analysis and restoration behavior.

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 implies a use case (analyzing master bus processing) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'measure' or 'compare'. It mentions 'Runs as a job' which hints at asynchronous execution, but there are no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative routing instructions.

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