mix_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'no mutation' constraint and 'explicit policy thresholds' context, but doesn't describe what those thresholds are or any other runtime behavior; no contradiction exists.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence with every word carrying meaning: diagnose, real bounce, policy thresholds, no mutation. No filler or redundant background.

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 rich annotations, high schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the main invocation details are covered; the agent knows it needs a candidate_path and can optionally supply reference/instrumental/target. The only residual gap is the undefined meaning of 'policy thresholds,' which is likely resolved by the output schema or domain context.

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?

With 83% schema description coverage, the schema already documents candidate_path, target, reference_path, vocal_path, and instrumental_path. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning and doesn't clarify the undocumented max_seconds or how 'policy thresholds' map to parameters, so it stays at the schema-heavy baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('diagnose') and identifies a concrete resource ('a real bounce'), and explicitly states it performs no mutation. This distinguishes it from mutation/planning siblings such as mix_apply_plan or mix_create_plan.

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 implies the tool is for diagnosing a real bounce file with policy thresholds, but it never states when to prefer it over sibling diagnostics such as mix_masking_recommendations or audio_compare_files, nor lists exclusions. This leaves usage to inference rather than explicit routing.

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