import_impulse_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 the key behavior that each imported channel becomes a measurement, which is useful. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., REW running), whether existing measurements are overwritten, or how errors are handled. This is moderate transparency but not comprehensive.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the essential information without wasted words. It is concise and structured clearly, with no 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?

For a simple import tool with a well-described schema, the description covers the core outcome: channels become measurements. The lack of an output schema and annotations is partially compensated by the clarity of the schema and the description. It could mention success/failure behavior or side effects, but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that each imported channel becomes a measurement, which directly clarifies the purpose of the 'channels' parameter. It also gives an example format (WAV), going beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 action: 'Import an impulse response file (e.g. WAV) into REW; each imported channel becomes a measurement.' This gives a specific verb, resource, and outcome, and it distinguishes this tool from sibling import tools by focusing on impulse response files and their conversion to measurements.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like import_impulse_response_data or import_rta_file. It only states what it does, leaving the selection criteria to the agent. There are no exclusions or mention of alternative tools.

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