measure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool records and measures the mix, and returns a measurement ID for compare(). It also specifies a runtime requirement (Live playing with loop brace). However, it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies the session, or what happens to previous measurements. For a measurement tool, this is partially transparent but lacks explicit side-effect disclosure.

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 two sentences long and efficiently packs the core action, the specific measurements, a precondition, and the return value into a compact form. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids fluff. Slightly denser than necessary, but still well-structured and easy to parse.

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 tool has an output schema, so the return value is presumably documented elsewhere. The description covers the purpose and a key precondition, and mentions the return ID's use case. However, it omits parameter semantics and alternative usage contexts. For a tool with two optional parameters and a defined output, the description is adequate but not comprehensive—it leaves the agent guessing about parameter meaning and alternative workflows.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain the 'bars' or 'section' parameters at all. The parameters are marked optional with defaults, but their meaning remains undocumented in both the schema and description. The description mentions 'from the top of the loop,' which could hint at the 'section' parameter, but it is not explicit. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to set appropriate parameter values.

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 clearly states a specific action: recording and measuring the mix, enumerating specific aspects (low-end axes, dynamics, stereo, resonances, club-readiness floor). It also mentions the return of a measurement ID for compare(), distinguishing it from sibling tools like map_mix or monitor. The verb 'measure' plus the detailed scope leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 includes a critical precondition: 'Live must be playing with the loop brace on.' This tells the agent when the tool can be used. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'use compare() after measuring'), nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative scenarios. The mention of compare() implies a workflow, but the when-to-use guidance is mostly implicit.

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