align_spl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the core operation but fails to mention side effects, whether measurements are modified in place or new data is returned, prerequisites, or limitations. This is a significant transparency gap for an operation that may alter measurement data.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly communicates the action and purpose in a concise manner, using a dash to append the rationale.

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 4-parameter alignment operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the tool returns, whether the operation is destructive, or any error/validation behavior. The one-liner is useful but leaves critical gaps for an agent to use it safely and correctly.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (targetDb, frequencyHz, spanOctaves, measurements), and coverage is high. The description reinforces the meaning of targetDb ('target level or average') and frequencyHz ('centre frequency') but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the action ('Align'), the resource ('SPL of several measurements'), and the scope ('to a target level or their average around a centre frequency'). The dash adds the purpose ('level-matching before comparison or averaging'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like average_measurements or align_measurements.

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 phrase 'level-matching before comparison or averaging' provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it compared to similar sibling tools such as align_measurements or add_spl_offset.

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