average_measurements

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 explicitly states that the tool creates a 'new one' (a new measurement), implying non-destructive behavior, and discloses the recommended default method. This adds useful behavioral context, though it stops short of detailing potential side effects like measurement compatibility requirements or whether the original measurements are fully unchanged.

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 with zero wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, and the second sentence adds directly useful guidance about the default method. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is simple (two parameters, one enum, one array) and the schema already documents the parameters. The description covers the core purpose and recommended method, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not describe the return format, but since there is no output schema and the operation is straightforward, this is an acceptable gap.

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 covers 50% of the parameters with descriptions, and the description adds meaning by mapping 'several measurements' to the measurements array and 'Vector average' to the method parameter. It also provides a practical recommendation for which enum value to use, which goes beyond the schema's raw enum list.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource construction: 'Average several measurements into a new one' — clearly stating what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by identifying this as 'the standard way to combine multiple mic positions', differentiating it from smoothing, alignment, and arithmetic tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: combining multiple mic positions via spatial averaging. It also recommends 'Vector average' as REW's default method, offering practical usage guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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