track_get_peak

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it is a read operation, explains the output format (linear and dB ranges), and emphasizes that it only works during playback. This provides good transparency for a simple read tool.

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 concise and well-structured: it first states the purpose, then the critical usage condition, followed by use cases, return format, and argument definition. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, what values to expect, and how to supply the argument. It is complete and self-contained.

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?

Only one parameter (track_index) with 0% schema description coverage. The description clarifies '0-based track index', which is exactly what the agent needs. While minimal, it is sufficient for understanding the parameter's meaning.

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 that the tool reads instantaneous peak level from a track's meter (L+R channels). It explains the purpose: checking clipping, comparing levels, verifying mix. No sibling tool reads peaks, so it is well-distinguished.

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 explicitly says 'Only meaningful DURING playback' and advises to start playback and wait before reading. It provides clear context for use, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it. Since no alternative exists, this is sufficient.

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