compare_tracks

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It reveals that full-mix fallbacks are refused, returns spectra and a masking table for the user to diagnose (not automated fixing), and references the same requirements as analyze_track. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or permission needs, but the 'for YOU to diagnose' phrasing implies analysis without modification. Some behavioral context is added beyond the schema.

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 efficiently written with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then states a key behavioral constraint (full-mix fallback refusal), and ends with routing to the sibling. Every sentence contributes distinct value.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it does, what it returns, constraints, and when to use it. The only gap is that 'same requirements as analyze_track' requires the agent to look up another tool's requirements, but since analyze_track is a sibling, this is acceptable. It does not explain output format details, but the mention of 'spectra' and 'masking table' is sufficient for an agent to understand the result.

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% for both parameters (tracks and seconds), so the schema already documents them. The description adds critical semantics: tracks must be 2+ and verified-isolated, which is a meaningful constraint beyond the schema's generic 'Two or more track names.' It also implicitly ties 'seconds' to capture length, but that is already in the schema. Overall, the description enhances parameter understanding.

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 clearly states a specific action (cross-track masking analysis) on a specific resource (2+ verified-isolated tracks) and explicitly differentiates from the sibling analyze_track by stating when each is appropriate. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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?

It explicitly names analyze_track as the alternative and gives the exact condition for choosing this tool: 'use this when two parts fight for the same frequencies.' It also notes the requirement of verified-isolated tracks and the refusal of full-mix fallbacks, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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