auto_eq

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

It discloses the process (sets model/target, matches response) and the return value (filters + summary), and adds that the output matches the REW GUI. However, with no annotations, it does not clarify whether running the tool has side effects on the REW session state or only computes/returns filters, leaving behavioral transparency incomplete.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and key output, and the second sentence adds valuable credibility without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and 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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a clear core purpose and return value but lacks explicit usage guidance, side-effect disclosure, and details on the summary format. It is adequate but leaves notable gaps for a complex tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides high-level context about model and target parameters but does not elaborate on each parameter's format or interaction beyond what the schema already documents. It adds marginal semantic value.

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 tool runs REW's automatic EQ on a measurement, details the steps (sets model/target, matches response), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling filter tools by noting it is REW's own optimiser and produces filters matching the GUI. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 usage as an automatic optimizer but does not explicitly state when to use it versus manual alternatives like set_eq_filters or get_eq_filters. It provides no exclusions or direct alternative references, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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