get_meters

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes well beyond: it documents the full return shape (peak_db, left_db, right_db, raw 0..1), the dBFS conversion formula, the over_0db threshold, audio-vs-MIDI differences, and the critical behavioral trait that meters only advance during playback.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core purpose leads, then output semantics, then the key constraint. Every sentence carries technical value, though the parenthetical formula is slightly crammed into the flow.

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 only 0%-covered parameters, the description fully carries the return-value burden, explaining units, units conversion, flags, and per-track-type behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 lone `tracks` parameter is undocumented in the schema (0% coverage), and the description compensates by clarifying it narrows output to 'only `tracks`' (excluding returns/master). It does not specify accepted id/name formats, but it adds real meaning beyond the schema.

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 (read) and resource (Live's meters) with explicit scope: 'Momentary peak levels of every track, return and master'. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_mixer or analyze_audio without opening a schema.

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?

Implied usage as a monitoring/read tool, and it provides the key caveat that 'Meters only move while the transport plays'. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g. get_mixer) or any exclusions, so guidance is only inferable.

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