Diagnose the mix (Mix Doctor)

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

The description reinforces the readOnlyHint annotation by stating it's READ-ONLY. It adds important behavioral details: the scan is on a 'thin paginated snapshot', samples peaks over ~1.2s, and may miss clipping in drops/choruses. It also lists the types of rules checked. No contradiction with annotations.

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: a few sentences conveying purpose, behavior, limitations, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the main action and caveats are clearly separated. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simplicity (no parameters, clear annotations, and existence of an output schema), the description covers all necessary context: what it does, its limitations, and when to use alternatives. The agent has sufficient information to decide when to invoke this 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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is fully covered. The description adds no parameter information (none needed), but it does describe the output (findings and proposals). Since there is an output schema, the description need not detail return values. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 it scans the mix and reports problems/proposed fixes, and explicitly marks it as READ-ONLY. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fl_apply_mix_fix (which applies fixes) and fl_mix_watch_start/stop (which monitors levels over full playback).

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 explicit guidance: use this tool for diagnosing mix issues, but warns about its limitation (only samples ~1.2 seconds) and suggests an alternative (fl_mix_watch_start/stop for full-song accurate levels). It also notes that level rules are skipped if stopped. This helps the agent choose correctly.

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