analyze_track

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and it largely succeeds. It discloses that this is a separate CLI, requires installation and enabled capture, refuses full-mix fallbacks, and requires the edit cursor to be parked at the playing track. This gives the agent important behavioral expectations beyond the schema. It stops short of describing error behavior for missing prerequisites, but the gating reference partially covers that.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the core purpose before prerequisites and caveats. The parenthetical about Post Mortem is a bit heavy, yet every clause earns its place by covering identity, output content, gating, fallback behavior, and setup requirement. It is not bloated, though it could be slightly tightened.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned measurement categories (FX chain, LUFS, true peak, spectrum, stereo image, silence fraction). It also supplies prerequisites, installation gating, fallback refusal, and an operational instruction about cursor placement. This is sufficient for a narrow diagnostic tool, though it leaves minor gaps around failure modes when prerequisites are unmet.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (track name and seconds default 10). The description adds context about the track needing to be verified-isolated and playing, which relates to the track parameter, but it does not add meaningful syntax or format details beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate since the structured schema carries the weight.

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 names a specific tool ('Post Mortem'), a specific action ('capture one verified-isolated track'), and a concrete output ('MEASURED mix data ... for YOU to diagnose'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it is a separate CLI that returns measured analysis, not a generic track operation. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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 clear context: it is for isolated-track measurement and diagnosis, requires Post Mortem installed and capture enabled, and explicitly refuses full-mix fallbacks. It references capture_track_audio for gating, which orients the agent toward the prerequisite flow. It does not explicitly contrast against all alternatives like profile_track or scan_fx, but the usage conditions are strong.

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