reference_spectrum_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state that it does not modify any state or require special permissions. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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 highly concise yet informative, packing the metric definition, the intended use case, and the exact band list into two sentences. 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?

Given the simple lookup nature of the tool, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool returns (spectral profile), the metric (RMS dB), and the bands. It does not describe the output format, but that is not critical for a simple reference lookup and the overall complexity is low.

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 sole parameter 'genre' is a plain string with no description in the schema. The tool description clarifies that it is used to select the target spectral profile for a genre, but it does not enumerate valid genre values or explain how the genre string should be formatted (e.g., 'rock', 'jazz'). Some guidance would improve usability.

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?

Clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (target spectral profile per genre), with specific detail on the metric (RMS dB per log-spaced band) and the exact band frequencies. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like reference_song_list or mix_match_reference, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 usage as a mastering reference via the 'mastering-engineer-cheat-sheet' phrasing, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide conditions for use. The usage context is hinted, not made explicit.

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