theory_mix_balance

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

The behavior is described for each argument combination, including that it returns tables, maps, or a single value with rationale. However, with no annotations, the description does not explicitly state that this is read-only, nor does it mention error behavior or invalid input handling.

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 tight and front-loaded, clearly stating the purpose in the first sentence and then efficiently covering all argument modes. The role and genre lists are lengthy but necessary and directly support parameter understanding.

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 no annotations, the description covers the main return shapes for all argument combinations. It lacks explicit error/edge-case details, but for a simple lookup tool the provided information is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description names `genre` and `role` in context and provides complete valid-value lists for both. It does not formally define data types or required/optional relationships beyond the argument-combination examples.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return reference track-volume dB targets for a genre.' It clearly distinguishes the query nature of this tool from mix/apply/render siblings by focusing on returning reference targets.

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?

It explains different argument combinations (no args, genre, genre + role), but does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like mix_apply_reference or mix_match_reference. No explicit 'use this when...' guidance or sibling comparison is given.

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