import_sweep_recordings

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 each imported channel becomes a measurement and that the stimulus file must be set first, adding useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects, whether existing measurements are overwritten, or any error/edge-case behavior, so transparency is moderate.

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, immediately states the core purpose, and uses no filler. It is front-loaded with the main action and provides necessary context clearly.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the workflow and outcome adequately. It explains the import process and the resulting measurements. Minor gaps include lack of mention of return values or error handling, but these are not critical for understanding core usage.

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 provides descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description reaffirms the roles of stimulusPath and responsePath but adds no new details about the channels parameter or parameter formats beyond what the schema states.

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's purpose: 'Import a recorded sweep as a measurement' with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the process (set stimulus file, then import response file) and differentiates from sibling import tools by focusing on sweep recordings rather than generic frequency/impulse responses.

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 implies when to use this tool ('recorded sweep') and provides input requirements, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like import_frequency_response or run_sweep. There are no explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion statements, leaving the usage guidance somewhat implicit.

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