mastering_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the analysis capabilities (compares, detects clashes, suggests chain) and parameter details, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive. However, the tool name and action verbs imply analysis without side effects.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the main purpose, lists key functionalities, and then explains parameters. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, functionality, and parameter meanings adequately. It does not explicitly address comparison with sibling tools or confirm read-only behavior, but given the output schema existence and relatively low complexity, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent.

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 description adds significant meaning to both parameters beyond the schema: it explains target_lufs with common streaming targets and wav_files as absolute paths. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this completely compensates for the missing property descriptions.

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 analyzes multiple WAV files together for mastering, comparing tracks, detecting frequency clashes, and giving mastering chain suggestions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_track or analyze_mix, which focus on single tracks or mixes.

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 for mastering analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_track, analyze_mix, or suggest_eq_settings. No when-not guidance or alternative tool references are provided.

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