import_rta_file

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions the outcome (producing an RTA measurement) but fails to mention key behaviors like whether a new measurement is added to the list, whether the operation is destructive, prerequisites (e.g., REW running), or supported file formats. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.

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, focused sentence that uses no filler. It front-loads the key verb and resource, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least clarify what the tool returns and how it fits among the many import siblings. It does none of that. The description is minimal and leaves the agent to infer side effects, return values, and the precise distinction from similar tools.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema already supplies for 'filePath' and 'channel'. It neither clarifies the relationship between parameters and the RTA process nor introduces helpful context.

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 is specific and action-oriented: 'Import an audio file' followed by the mechanism 'through REW's RTA' and the outcome 'producing an RTA measurement of its spectrum.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like import_frequency_response or import_impulse_response by emphasizing RTA analysis.

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: use this to generate an RTA spectrum measurement from an audio file. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative import tools or state when not to use it, missing the 'exclusions' part of the rubric.

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