measure_levels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that this is a live polling operation requiring playback, and it explains the meter scale including the dB conversion (0.917 = -0.3 dBFS). It stops short of stating whether the call blocks for the poll duration or how the per-track data is structured, but the temporal behavior is well conveyed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then a useful parenthetical on scale semantics and prerequisites. Slightly dense but every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly specifies what is returned (peak and average per track/return/master) plus scale interpretation. Adequate for a live measurement tool, though blocking/latency behavior remains implicit.

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 0% for the single 'seconds' parameter, so the description must compensate. 'Poll ... while the set plays' implies a measurement window, but the description never explicitly states that 'seconds' sets the polling duration. Marginal value added over the bare schema.

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 (poll the output meters) and the exact resource returned (peak and average level per track, return, and master). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_track_info or analyze_audio, which don't measure live output levels.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite ('Start playback first') and a concrete use case ('balance and catch clipping'). It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool or when NOT to use it, but the context is unambiguous.

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