gain_check

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this by stating it only suggests changes rather than applying them. It adds useful behavioral context: the loudest-part prerequisite, default target of -12 dBFS, and the fact that it measures peaks. The return format is not described, but the read-only safety profile is well covered.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The most critical operational instruction (play loudest part first) is front-loaded, followed by what the tool measures and its relationship to set_preamp. Every sentence carries useful guidance.

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 essential operational procedure and the tool's non-mutating role, but it lacks information about the output format and leaves two of three parameters undocumented. For a tool with no output schema, this is a meaningful gap, though the core usage is still understandable.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only explains target_peak_db (with its default -12 dBFS), leaving seconds and targets completely unexplained. An agent cannot confidently infer what 'targets' refers to or how 'seconds' affects the measurement.

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 as a gain-staging helper that measures channel peaks and suggests preamp gain changes toward a target peak level. It explicitly distinguishes its advisory role from the applying tool set_preamp, making its purpose unambiguous relative to siblings.

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 a clear when-to-use instruction: ask musicians to play their loudest part first, then run it. It also states the relationship to set_preamp (suggests only, apply separately), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like read_meters for raw metering or say when not to use it.

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