mixer_get_peaks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly states the output range, clipping indicator, live/playing dependency, and that master is track 0. It stops short of describing exact return field names or behavior when the transport is stopped.

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 tightly packed lines with no filler. The core result is front-loaded, followed by the single essential usage caveat.

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 single-parameter live read with no output schema, this is complete: the agent knows what to pass, what the values mean, when to call it, and how to interpret clipping. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, but the description compensates by defining the track parameter as a mixer track and specifying that 0 is the master. It does not state the upper bound of valid track indexes, though that is discoverable through mixer_count.

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 names a specific resource ('live peak levels ... for one mixer track'), the left/right channel breakdown, and the value domain (~0..1, >1 clipping). It distinguishes this from the sibling mixer_all_peaks by emphasizing 'one mixer track.'

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?

It gives an explicit precondition ('start the transport first') and the intended polling context ('poll during playback'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the 'one mixer track' scope routes away from mixer_all_peaks.

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