analyze_mix

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

The description explicitly states 'Reads the session; changes nothing,' which matches the readOnlyHint annotation and adds valuable behavioral detail about what it checks. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence lists specific checks, the second clarifies read-only nature and output. Information is front-loaded.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only analysis tool with no parameters. It mentions returning 'machine-readable findings,' which is sufficient given an output schema likely exists. Could optionally note it runs on the current set.

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 are zero parameters; schema coverage is complete. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it implicitly covers the tool's functionality without parameters.

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 defines what the tool does: scan for common mix problems like tracks at 0 dB, muted/empty tracks, MIDI with no instrument. It uses specific verbs and resources, and it distinguishes from sibling tools by being an analysis-only tool.

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 implies when to use (when you need to check for mix problems before fixing) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. It could be more directive.

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