analyze_mix

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating 'Reads the session; changes nothing.' It also adds useful behavioral context: results are heuristic, machine-readable 'finding leads,' and external routing or Arrangement audio may explain the reported states. This goes beyond the minimal annotation coverage.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The key differentiator ('NOT audio, peak, LUFS...') is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place by covering scope, examples, interpretation context, and read-only behavior.

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 no-parameter, read-only analysis tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It states what it checks, what patterns count as findings, what external conditions may explain them, that results are machine-readable, and that the tool mutates nothing.

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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. With schema description coverage at 100% on an empty schema, nothing additional is required.

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-resource pairing: it scans the current live set for heuristic session-state inspection leads. It explicitly distinguishes itself from audio analysis by stating 'NOT audio, peak, LUFS or headroom measurements' and names concrete patterns it detects, so it is clearly separable from siblings like analyze_audio_file.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: use it to find inspection leads in the current session rather than to measure audio levels. It states an explicit exclusion ('NOT audio, peak, LUFS...') but does not name an alternative tool or provide a when-not-to-use recommendation beyond that, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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