Reference match (level/balance)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds crucial honesty: the tool does NOT perform a spectral match, it's a rough estimate based on track names and peaks, and it suggests adjustments without applying them. No contradictions 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?

Description is concise but packed with necessary information. Every sentence earns its place, though the structure could be slightly improved (e.g., bullet points). Well within acceptable length.

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 has one parameter and an output schema (not shown but present), the description adequately covers what the tool does, its limitations, and the nature of its output. It could mention the output schema briefly, but the existing text is sufficient for an informed decision.

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 100% with a clear description for the single parameter. The description adds context about what the reference file is used for (analyze overall level and spectral-band shares), but this is more behavioral than parameter-specific. Baseline 3 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?

Description clearly states it compares mix level and rough tonal balance to a reference track. Distinguishes itself from potential siblings like fl_analyze_audio or fl_diagnose_mix by specifying its scope (level/balance vs spectral match).

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?

Explicitly mentions it's READ-ONLY and notes this is not a spectral match. Limitations are spelled out, helping decide when to use or trust the tool. Could explicitly name alternative tools for spectral matching, but the guidance is clear.

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