mixer_all_peaks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does disclose important behaviors: the snapshot is live, the master track is included at index 0, and silent tracks are omitted unless include_silent is set. It stops short of specifying the exact units or return structure, but the behavior described is meaningful and non-obvious.

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?

Two compact sentences that front-load the core function and then add polling and filtering details. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 simple read-only snapshot with one optional boolean, the description covers purpose, usage pattern, and filtering behavior. It lacks an explicit return-value format or unit description, but the simplicity of the tool and the absence of required parameters make this a minor gap.

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%, so the description must explain include_silent, and it does: silent tracks are omitted unless include_silent is set. This makes the parameter's effect actionable and clear, even without additional schema documentation.

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 identifies the tool's function: it returns a live peak snapshot for every mixer track, including the master track at index 0. This distinguishes it from siblings like mixer_get_peaks, which likely targets a single track, and mixer_all_tracks, which returns broader track data. The gain-staging and clipping-check context further clarifies intent.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: poll several times during playback to get a representative picture, which is valuable for a dynamic measurement tool. It also mentions the include_silent behavior, giving context for when to set that parameter. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to avoid, but the scope and polling guidance are sufficient.

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