run_sweep

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool blocks until the sweep completes and returns the new measurement, which are critical behavioral traits. It also surfaces the license/configuration dependencies. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting an existing measurement with the same name) or failure behaviors, leaving some transparency gaps.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisites, then behavior. Every clause adds value: configure/run, license requirement, blocking, and return value. There is zero redundancy or verbose padding.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: purpose, prerequisites, blocking behavior, and return value. It is missing a note on failure modes or what constitutes a successful 'new measurement' in terms of storage/session, but the description is largely complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 no parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already provides, such as the enum for sweep length and the default values. It does not explain how parameters interplay (e.g., startFreq vs endFreq), but the schema is self-sufficient, so a 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: 'Configure and run a swept-sine SPL measurement.' This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like run_measurement_command and other measurement tools. It also states the result ('returns the new measurement'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 for when to use the tool by stating prerequisites: REW audio input/output must be configured and a REW Pro license is required for API-triggered measurement. It implies this is the dedicated path for swept-sine measurements, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to choose another tool, so it misses a strong 'when not to use' statement.

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