import_frequency_response

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a new measurement, which is useful, but it does not describe error behavior, file format validation, or side effects beyond creating a measurement. This is a moderate gap given the absence of annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence provides an alternative. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 has a simple input (one parameter) and no output schema. The description clearly states the outcome (new measurement) but does not mention expected return values or error handling. It also does not distinguish from other similar import siblings like import_frequency_response_data, which would improve completeness. Overall adequate but with notable gaps.

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 fully describes the only parameter (filePath) with 100% coverage. The description adds context about the file being a 'text frequency response file' with a specific line format, but does not add detail about the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Import') with a clear resource ('text frequency response file') and outcome ('into REW as a new measurement'). It also explicitly distinguishes from a sibling tool ('For native .mdat files use load_measurement_files instead'), satisfying the requirement for sibling differentiation.

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 explicit when-not-to-use guidance by stating 'For native .mdat files use load_measurement_files instead.' This gives a clear alternative for a specific scenario, effectively guiding tool selection. The implied usage (for text frequency response files) is also evident.

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