analyze_mix

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool analyzes the mix state and gives actionable suggestions without capturing audio, implying a read-only behavior. It does not mention any side effects or destructive actions, which is appropriate for an analysis tool.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and listing key aspects analyzed. Every sentence is essential, with no unnecessary words.

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 complexity (analyzing multiple aspects of a mix) and the existence of an output schema (which likely details the analysis results), the description adequately covers the tool's scope, specificity, and behavior. It mentions volume, gain staging, frequency clashes, balance, and actionable suggestions, which are comprehensive for a mix analysis tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The baseline is 4, and the description adds no parameter information, but it is not needed. The description effectively explains what the tool does, which compensates for the lack of parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Analyze' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the current mix state (all tracks)', listing specific aspects like volume levels, gain staging, frequency clashes, and overall mix balance. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'analyze_track' which focuses on individual tracks, and 'mastering_analysis' which is mastering-oriented.

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 provides context for usage by stating 'without needing to capture audio', implying a non-destructive analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'analyze_track' for single-track analysis, though the sibling list is available.

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