room_mode_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the tool predicts modes and can correlate them with measurements, and it explains the implications for EQ vs. nulls. However, it does not describe the output format, whether the tool is read-only, or any assumptions/limitations beyond 'rectangular-room.' This is some behavioral context, but not full transparency.

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 efficiently conveys purpose, optional behavior, and practical interpretation. There is no redundant or filler content; every phrase 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?

The tool has six parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description explains the core purpose and optional correlation, but it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of modes, frequencies, or a correlation report). While the schema covers each parameter, the lack of output details leaves a notable gap for an analysis tool.

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 tool description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the input schema already provides, such as units or the meaning of maxHz or rt60Seconds. It only conceptually references 'room dimensions' and 'measurement,' which the schema already covers.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Predict rectangular-room standing-wave modes from room dimensions.' It further clarifies the optional correlation with measured peaks/nulls to identify modal response problems, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like analyze_response or get_predicted_response.

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 states when to use the tool: to predict room modes and optionally correlate them with a measurement to identify which response problems are modal. It also gives practical guidance (EQ can tame modal peaks; modal nulls need placement or treatment). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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