get_distortion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only notes that the data is 'only meaningful' under certain conditions but does not disclose what happens when the condition is not met (e.g., error vs. empty result), nor does it describe output structure beyond 'table'.

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, effectively front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words; every clause adds value.

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 a simple read operation with no output schema or annotations. The description covers the core purpose and a key precondition, but lacks details on error handling, return table structure, or potential side effects, leaving some gaps for a complete picture.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description itself adds minimal parameter-level insight beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding of parameter semantics.

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 retrieves distortion data (THD and harmonics) for a measurement as a table. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('measurement's distortion data'), distinguishing it from sibling retrieval tools like get_frequency_response and get_rt60.

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 states when the tool is meaningful: only for measurements captured with distortion analysis (swept sine). This provides clear contextual guidance, though it does not name alternative tools for non-distortion measurements.

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