get_spectral_snapshot

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the capture duration (~2 seconds), the requirement for transport to be playing, and the point-in-time nature, setting accurate expectations. No contradictions with annotations (none present).

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?

Description is concise, three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: core functionality, necessary condition, and usage context. No redundant information.

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?

The description covers operation, requirements, and alternatives, which is good for a simple single-parameter tool. However, it doesn't specify the exact response format or frequency band breakdown, which would be helpful since there is no output schema. Otherwise, it's quite complete.

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 description coverage is 100% (source: 'master' for master bus, or a track name). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'captures' and specifies the resource (live audio from master bus) and output (peak/RMS levels across frequency bands). It also distinguishes itself from get_track_details, making it unique.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: as a secondary check to verify device parameter analysis or detect issues like masking, phase, resonances. Also provides when-not-to-use: for most frequency questions, get_track_details is more informative. Includes prerequisite that transport must be playing.

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