mixer_get_peak_watch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation behavior: the watch keeps running after the read, and watch lifetime is process-local and ends on server restart — important operational context.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then lifetime constraint. No filler and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the return fields need not be explained, yet the description still names them (maximum peak, clipping frame count, last fader reading). Read semantics, lifetime, and the referenced sibling are all covered — nothing material is missing for a one-parameter read 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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema coverage, including a format pattern and a description pointing to mixer_start_peak_watch. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (a peak watch's status and cumulative per-track peaks), and the scope is clear enough to distinguish it from mixer_start_peak_watch and mixer_stop_peak_watch. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the schema.

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 clarifies the watch stays running after the read and that watches are process-local and end on MCP server restart, which frames when the tool is applicable. It does not explicitly compare against siblings such as mixer_stop_peak_watch, but the read-only framing is clear context.

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