analyze_mix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that findings are suggestions, not directives, and emphasizes subjectivity and artistic intent. This adds important context beyond the raw operation, though it doesn't mention return format or whether it modifies anything (which is likely read-only but not stated).

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, invocation constraint, and interpretational guidance. It is front-loaded and free of repetition or fluff.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to invoke it, how to frame results, and the subjective nature of mix quality, fully covering the behavioral and usage context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed since the schema is empty and fully covers the parameter set.

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 runs rule-based heuristic analysis for specific mix issues (frequency buildup, dynamics problems, routing inefficiencies, headroom), using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes its purpose as a comprehensive mix analyzer rather than a single-purpose spectral tool.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Only call when the user explicitly asks for mix feedback or describes a specific problem — do NOT call proactively.' However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_spectral_snapshot, so it misses the 'alternatives' part of a 5.

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