mix_match_reference

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

The description discloses the output (per-band diff and diagnosis) but does not explicitly state side effects or confirm that it is read-only. Since there are no annotations providing this information, the description carries the burden, and it only partially covers behavioral transparency.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It packs essential information about the action, inputs, outputs, and timing, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's relatively simple nature, the description covers all core aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It lacks detailed parameter specifications but is otherwise complete enough for an agent to understand the workflow.

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 schema has zero coverage (no descriptions for file_path or genre). The description loosely implies that file_path points to a rendered file and genre selects the reference spectrum, but it does not provide details on expected formats, allowed values, or constraints. The compensation from the description is minimal.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Compare'), the resource ('rendered file' and 'genre's reference spectrum'), and the output ('per-band diff in dB plus a plain-English diagnosis'). It also provides context for when it is used ('after render to inform mix adjustments'), which distinguishes it from other analysis tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use after render to inform mix adjustments,' giving a clear timing and intent. However, it does not contrast this tool with alternative siblings like 'mix_apply_reference' or 'reference_spectrum_lookup,' so the guidance is not fully explicit about when to choose this over others.

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