read_spl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the workflow: starts the meter, waits for integration, reads, optionally stops. This discloses side effects and timing behavior, adding value beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by workflow and a usage hint. Zero fluff, every sentence earns its place.

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 4-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, workflow, and a practical usage tip (play a signal, see generator). It could mention prerequisites like REW running or return format, but these are minor 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning; it mentions 'optionally stops' and 'waits for it to integrate' which map to stopAfter and settleSeconds, but the schema already describes each parameter adequately.

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 reads sound pressure level from REW's SPL meter, listing specific measurements (SPL, Leq, SEL). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on live SPL metering rather than stored measurements or sweeps.

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?

It provides clear context: use this to measure playback level and suggests playing a signal via the generator tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like get_measurement, so it misses a full exclusion list.

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