get_rt60

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the impulse-response prerequisite, but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or potential error conditions. 'Generate and read' implies analysis, but lacks explicit side-effect or safety disclosure, leaving a gap.

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-loads the purpose, and adds a key prerequisite without extraneous detail.

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 (2 params, no output schema) and the description covers purpose and a key constraint. However, because there are no annotations, the description should carry more behavioral context (e.g., return format, non-destructive nature), which is missing. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage, explaining both 'measurement' and 'octaveFraction'. The description's mention of 'per octave or one-third-octave band' merely echoes the schema's enum descriptions, adding no new 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 specifies a clear verb ('Generate and read') and resource ('RT60 / ISO 3382 decay parameters'), naming specific parameters (EDT, T20, T30, Topt) and band types (octave/one-third-octave). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_frequency_response or get_distortion.

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 states a prerequisite: the measurement must have an impulse response, and notes that swept measurements do. This provides clear context on when the tool is applicable, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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