audio-calibration-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0-beta.1
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially with the plan/execute pairs and specialized analysis functions. Some aliases and related analysis tools (e.g., rew_trace vs. rew_generate_trace) create minor ambiguity, but overall an agent can differentiate the tools.
Naming Consistency2/5Naming is inconsistent: many tools follow the verb_noun pattern with _plan/_execute suffixes, but aliases (rew_load_file, rew_save_all) and direct-action tools (rew_trace, audio_room_metrics) break the convention. While prefixes (audio_, rew_, car_, jamesdsp_) are consistent, the mixed style is confusing.
Tool Count1/5With 101 tools, the server is massively over-scoped for any MCP purpose. Even for a complex domain like audio calibration, this number overwhelms agents and makes tool selection error-prone. The typical range is 3–15, and this is far beyond that.
Completeness4/5The tool surface is extremely comprehensive, covering measurement, analysis, EQ design, DSP, listening tests, uncertainty, room acoustics, and REW integration. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no artifact deletion or explicit update for some resources), but the workflows are largely complete.
Average 2.8/5 across 81 of 101 tools scored. Lowest: 1.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 20 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'bind' without revealing side effects, whether it is read-only, whether it modifies state, or what the output looks like. This is grossly insufficient for a tool that interacts with a live API.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence), but brevity here is under-specification, not conciseness. It lacks essential information and does not front-load any actionable detail beyond a vague verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is completely inadequate. It gives no sense of how to construct a valid call, what the 'exact command' means, or what constitutes a successful result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters (endpoint, command, parameters). It does not mention any of them or their role in 'binding'. The agent is left without any explanation of what each parameter means.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a verb ('Bind') and a resource ('an exact command exposed by the live REW diagnostic API'), but the meaning of 'bind' is unclear—it does not explain whether this prepares, configures, or selects a command. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like rew_diagnostic_execute, which likely performs the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rew_diagnostic_execute or other planning siblings. The description provides no context about its role in a workflow or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
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 behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only planning operation, what side effects may occur, whether files are saved or modified, or any required setup. The phrase 'protected separately retained' hints at some retention behavior but is not explained, leaving the agent entirely in the dark.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief, but brevity is not conciseness when essential information is missing. It is a single sentence that fails to define key terms or operations. The lack of structure means the agent cannot extract actionable requirements.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity—13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a niche domain—the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain what a 'level ladder' is, what the 'plan' produces, how it relates to other REW tools, or what the agent must provide. The agent would be guessing at nearly every aspect of invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description lists no parameters or their meanings. With 13 parameters (6 required), the agent has no guidance beyond raw schema definitions. The description does not help interpret 'levelsDbfs', 'sweepLength', 'timingReference', or any other parameter, making correct parameter selection highly uncertain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Plan' and refers to 'distortion/compression sweeps at several levels for one channel,' but the phrase 'protected separately retained' is opaque and the intended output or action remains unclear. It does not sufficiently differentiate from sibling planning tools like rew_generate_trace_plan or rew_measurement_plan, which also plan audio sweeps. The meaning is too vague to guide an agent reliably.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or context for invocation. With many sibling plan tools, the agent cannot determine why this specific planning tool should be chosen over others. The description gives no hint of prerequisites, sequencing, or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it modifies state, what it returns, or what side effects occur. The phrase 'preflight' suggests inspection but not explicitly. It also does not mention any safety or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise but under-specifies. It front-loads the main action but omits essential operational details. The brevity is not a virtue here because it leaves critical information to be inferred, making it more cryptic than useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, what constitutes an assessment, how BS.2051 compliance is evaluated, or what the expected format of results is. An agent cannot decide to call this tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It mentions 'channel coordinates' and 'head-position metadata' but does not map these to the actual schema properties (channels, listener, headPositionMetadata) or explain their types, units, or constraints. The agent cannot infer what values to provide for azimuthDeg, elevationDeg, or the nested structures.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'preflights immersive channel coordinates and head-position metadata', giving a verb and a resource. However, 'preflight' is jargon and it does not clarify what the assessment actually does (e.g., validates, checks bounds, compares to a standard). It also does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'audio_sofa_metadata_assessment' or 'car_channel_map_validate' that likely overlap in intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The warning about 'not overstating BS.2051 compliance' hints at a caution but does not explain when this tool is the right choice. The agent is left to guess if this is for validation, analysis, or reporting.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and expectations. It mentions 'write and verify' but does not explain that a `confirmationToken` is required (and likely a two-step confirmation flow), nor what side effects occur (e.g., files written, system changes). The verification step is mentioned but not elaborated—no details on how verification is performed or what happens if it fails. This is a significant gap for an action-oriented tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one sentence—and easy to read. However, it is under-specified; the lack of detail makes it more of a stub than a helpful definition. It is not verbose, but it earns its place only by being short, not by delivering useful content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is grossly inadequate. The agent cannot determine what `plan` is, why a confirmation token is required, what the `confirm` boolean does, or what the tool returns or verifies. The complexity of a 'filter export' with verification demands much more explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention `plan`, `confirm`, or `confirmationToken` at all. The agent has no idea what these parameters mean, what format `plan` should be in, or how `confirm` interacts with `confirmationToken`. Zero added value over the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a verb ('write and verify') and a resource ('cross-platform filter export'), conveying the basic action. However, it does not differentiate this execute tool from the sibling planning tool `audio_filter_export_plan`, nor does it mention that it likely consumes a plan. The purpose is clear at a high level but lacks specificity about what 'write and verify' entails in practice.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like `audio_filter_export_plan` or other execute tools. It leaves the agent to infer that this tool is the execution step, which is not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals an internal recheck step, which is useful, but it never explains the execution consequences — whether measurements are overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or what the required confirmationToken/confirm gates protect against. The presence of a required confirmation token strongly hints at a destructive or sensitive action that is left unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff and the core verb is front-loaded, which is efficient. However, the brevity comes at the expense of substance — the tool's required params and workflow need far more space than one sentence, so the conciseness is over-optimized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a nested-object parameter, no schema property descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and an enormous sibling set, this is grossly insufficient. An agent cannot determine the plan format, valid confirmation tokens, the purpose of the confirm flag, or how this tool relates to rew_generate_trace_plan/rew_trace, making correct invocation effectively impossible from the provided text.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain what the parameters mean, but it mentions none of them. There is no guidance on the expected structure of the nested `plan` object, what a valid `confirmationToken` is, or what the `confirm` boolean does. With three params and zero semantic coverage from both schema and description, this is a severe gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a verb ('Execute') and a resource ('an exact derived-trace plan'), so it is not a tautology. However, the phrase 'derived-trace plan' is undefined jargon, and with ~120 siblings including rew_trace, rew_generate_trace, and rew_generate_trace_plan, the description alone does not let an agent distinguish this execute companion from its many peers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'after rechecking the REW measurement set' implies a sequencing precondition, but there is no explicit guidance on when to invoke this vs the plan generator (rew_generate_trace_plan), what to do with the returned plan, or any exclusions. Given the large sibling set, an agent cannot infer the intended workflow from this text.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Guarded' is never defined, and the description omits any details about side effects, constraints, return structure, or safety implications. The tool name implies a planning action, but its actual behavior is opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately compact. It omits essential details and does not front-load useful context beyond the basic action. Conciseness without substance does not earn a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the plan contains, what 'guarded' constrains, or how it integrates with the execution flow. An agent cannot infer correct usage or expected behavior from this description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no explanation for any of the 13 parameters. Terms like startHz, endHz, maxSplDb, and levelDbfs are left entirely to the schema's type/enum constraints, which are insufficient for an agent to understand their purpose. The description fails to compensate for this gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates a REW sweep plan for speaker, car, or laptop contexts. The verb 'create' and resource 'plan' are specific, and it distinguishes from execution tools (e.g., rew_measurement_execute) by the word 'plan'. However, 'guarded' is vague and not explained, though the core purpose is comprehensible.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is a planning step before execution, nor does it reference any specific sibling tools or contexts where it would be preferred. With many plan tools in the sibling list, the agent lacks explicit routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'write and verify' but does not explain whether this is destructive, whether it requires user confirmation (despite the 'confirm' and 'confirmationToken' parameters), what happens on verification failure, or what the output/return behavior is. These are significant gaps for a tool that clearly has a confirmation flow.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely efficient. It front-loads the action but omits necessary detail, so the brevity is not paired with adequate information. The structure does not help an agent understand the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, one nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the plan, the confirmation flow, what 'verify' entails, or the nature of the report set. An agent cannot correctly use this tool without additional external knowledge or guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the three parameters: 'plan', 'confirm', and 'confirmationToken'. The term 'calibration report set' gives no insight into what the plan object should contain, how confirm/confirmationToken are used, or what format they expect. The description adds no value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific action ('write and verify') and a resource ('calibration report set'), which clearly distinguishes it as an execute-type operation. However, 'calibration report set' is somewhat generic and doesn't clarify the exact scope or how it differs from audio_report_plan or other report-related tools, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no mention of when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or what alternatives might be more appropriate. The description only states what the tool does, not when an agent should choose it over siblings like audio_report_plan, rew_save_all_execute, or audio_artifact_validate. No exclusions or routing guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It declares a destructive action ('Cancel') with zero detail: no confirmation semantics, no statement about reversibility, no indication of what happens to data already collected, and no mention of the confirm flag behavior. For a cancel operation that has side effects, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, clean sentence that is genuinely front-loaded and efficient. However, it contains no additional structural information beyond the bare verb+resource, and the under-2-word length borders on under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the bar is modest, but the description still leaves critical elements unexplained: the semantics of confirm, the effect of cancellation on a live measurement, and any expected return behavior. The agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly from the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the sole parameter, confirm. The boolean's meaning - whether true confirms/cancels immediately or false requires extra confirmation, and what the tool returns at default false - is entirely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Cancel') and a precise resource ('a live REW measurement'), making the intent unmistakable. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like rew_measurement_execute and rew_measurement_plan (you cancel an in-progress measurement, not a planned or completed one), though it never names a sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't state a prerequisite (that a measurement must be actively live), doesn't mention the confirmation workflow, and doesn't distinguish itself from the similarly-purposed sibling audio_job_cancel. The agent is left to infer all usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The word 'gate' implies an action (likely filtering or validating) but does not specify what happens on success or failure, whether the operation is read-only, or what side effects might occur. The list of criteria gives some context but lacks detail on outcomes or state changes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) but under-specified for a tool with 12 parameters and no other structured information. It lacks any structure like bullet points for criteria, examples, or a breakdown of inputs/outputs. While brevity is good, it sacrifices essential information needed to use the tool effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count (12), lack of output schema, and absence of annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the gating result, edge cases, or the meaning of parameters like expectedTraceCount or microphoneCalibrationHash. An agent cannot reliably call this tool based on this description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of explanation. However, the description does not mention any parameter or how the listed criteria map to the 12 schema properties (e.g., snrDb, minSnrDb, stateFingerprint). It provides no semantic value beyond what the property names themselves hint at, leaving the agent without guidance on how to set parameters correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Gate live REW traces') and enumerates the criteria (coverage, clipping, SNR, repeatability, route state, DSP state, microphone-calibration identity). This makes the core purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like rew_trace or rew_measurement_*, leaving ambiguity about the exact scope compared to related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that would make this tool preferable over other REW-related tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects and constraints. It mentions 'validate' but does not clarify what validation entails, whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects on the session/evidence. The agent is left unaware of what happens beyond the vague promise of creating an artifact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficiently written sentence that front-loads the core action. It avoids fluff. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, which slightly penalizes the conciseness score (though the sentence structure itself is clean).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only a high-level purpose, omitting essential details like what 'evidence' refers to, how parameters interact, what the artifact format is, and what 'validation' performs. It is grossly incomplete for an agent to safely and correctly invoke this tool, especially given the broad sibling context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the 6 parameters (sweeps, filters, session, analyses, provenance, verification). The schema itself is minimal (mostly empty objects with additionalProperties), so the description provides no compensation. An agent cannot know what each parameter means or which are necessary beyond 'session' being required by the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('create and validate') on a specific resource ('versioned, replayable calibration artifact'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like audio_artifact_validate and audio_artifact_migrate, though it does not explicitly name them. The phrase 'from supplied evidence' adds context about the input nature, making the purpose understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as audio_artifact_validate or audio_artifact_migrate. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it. The description leaves the agent to infer usage, which is inadequate given the large set of similar audio artifact tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions it 'validates' and 'reports gaps,' but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, whether it modifies the artifact, if it requires specific access, or what the side effects might be. No mention of error conditions or whether it validates against a schema. The behavior beyond the action is largely unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the main action and outcome. However, its extreme brevity borders on under-specification, though for pure conciseness and structure it is effective. The sentence earns its place with essential content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a nested object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain what 'versioned' means, how to specify the artifact, what 'reproducibility gaps' are, or what the validation result looks like. An agent would be unable to correctly invoke this tool beyond guessing the parameter content. The description leaves critical context unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the sole parameter 'artifact,' and the tool description provides no additional meaning. It does not explain what constitutes an 'artifact,' its structure, required fields, or how the versioned nature is reflected in the parameter. The description entirely fails to compensate for the empty schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Validate') on a specific resource ('versioned calibration artifact') and mentions a concrete outcome ('report reproducibility gaps'). This makes the tool's primary function clear. It partially differentiates from siblings like audio_artifact_create and audio_artifact_migrate, but does not explicitly name alternatives; a clear but not fully distinguished purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or situations where another sibling tool would be more appropriate. For example, it does not say 'use this after artifact creation' or 'use audio_session_replay_validate for session-level validation.' There is no exclusions or routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It reveals that the proposal is 'hash-bound' (likely deterministic) and 'cut-only' (no boosts), and that it involves training on stable traces and validation on withheld traces. However, it omits side effects, required inputs lifecycle, failure modes, or whether it is a pure computation or has side effects like saving data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it is dense and jargon-heavy. It front-loads the core action but leaves the reader to parse domain-specific terms. Concise but not necessarily clear to an agent unfamiliar with the domain.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what inputs are needed, what the output will look like, or what 'hash-bound' and 'cut-only' imply for the result. The tool is likely part of a complex workflow but the description does not provide enough context to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description gives no explanation of any of the 13 parameters (e.g., maxQ, lowHz, highHz, maxCutDb, deviceClass). The parameters like minCorrectionDb, validationCount, or maxSpatialSpreadDb remain completely unexplained, so an agent cannot infer their meaning or required values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Create'), a resource ('EQ proposal'), and key constraints ('hash-bound', 'cut-only', 'trained on stable traces', 'checked against withheld traces'). This distinguishes it from generic EQ tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like audio_eq_proposal to make differentiation explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audio_eq_proposal, audio_filter_export_plan, or other planning tools. The description implies a training/validation workflow but does not state prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool reports (causality, pre-ringing, etc.) but does not disclose side effects, computational cost, whether it is read-only, input validation behavior, or error handling. The lack of any advance on the annotation baseline leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, densely packed sentence that front-loads the core action and lists the key output reports. No unnecessary words. However, it may be overly terse, sacrificing clarity for brevity, but it earns credit for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (two required array parameters, seven total parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the format of measuredResponse/targetResponse, the meaning of regularization or latencySamples, or what constitutes a 'deployment gate'. An agent has almost no context to call this correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions none of the seven parameters (taps, maxBoostDb, latencySamples, regularization, targetResponse, measuredResponse, quantizationBits). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to clarify what these parameters mean or how they map to the design process. This is a critical omission for a tool with complex structured inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's function: designing a regularized bounded mixed-phase FIR proposal and reporting key metrics (causality, pre-ringing, latency, quantization, deployment gates). It uses specific technical verbs and nouns, distinguishing it from generic EQ tools like audio_eq_proposal, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audio_eq_proposal or audio_filter_export_plan. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would be uncertain whether to pick this over related FIR/EQ tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the validation requirement ('each channel must pass held-out validation independently'), which is a useful behavioral trait, but it does not describe what the tool returns (output format), what side effects occur (if any), whether it blocks for validation, or what happens on failure. For a complex tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and specifies the core validation constraint. It is concise and avoids fluff, but the density might obscure key details. Still, it earns points for efficiency and clarity of the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 16 parameters, only 3 required, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation in the description, the tool is grossly under-specified. An agent cannot determine what inputs are critical, how to structure them, what the tool returns, or what distinguishes a successful call from a failed one. The description covers only a fraction of the information needed to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameter names like 'maxQ', 'lowHz', 'regularization', and 'maxSpatialSpreadDb' are not self-explanatory. The description does not define any of these parameters or explain their roles. It only mentions 'linked filter centers' and 'bounded left/right gain differences' at a high level, leaving the agent to guess which parameters control these behaviors. This is a severe deficiency.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('regularized per-channel EQ with linked filter centers and bounded left/right gain differences'), and it adds a validation constraint. This distinguishes it from generic EQ tools, though it doesn't name an alternative sibling. It is specific enough for an agent to grasp the core function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus other EQ planning or design tools in the sibling list (e.g., audio_eq_design_plan, audio_filter_export_plan). It implies a use case through its constraints but never explicitly states when it should be selected or what scenarios it is not for.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'fingerprinted', 'measured-level-matched', and 'randomized', which hint at behavioral traits, but it does not disclose what the plan does beyond creation (e.g., whether it executes anything, what output is returned, or any side effects). The description is too sparse to convey the tool's actual behavior, especially for a planning tool that likely just produces a plan object.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb 'Create' and the core resource. It is appropriately concise with no fluff. However, it lacks any structural elements like bullet points or sections that could enhance clarity, but given its brevity, it remains well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the plan entails, how it should be used in a listening test workflow, prerequisites (e.g., fingerprints or level measurements), or what the return value represents. An agent would be unable to correctly invoke this tool without additional external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 11 parameters. Terms like 'fingerprinted' and 'measured-level-matched' vaguely relate to fingerprint and level parameters, but the description adds no concrete meaning to the parameters. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a listening-test plan with specific attributes (fingerprinted, measured-level-matched, randomized, A/B or ABX). The verb and resource are clear. However, it does not differentiate itself from the similar sibling 'audio_laboratory_listening_plan', and the wording is somewhat generic, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'audio_laboratory_listening_plan' or other plan tools. It does not mention conditions, preferences, or exclusions. The context of listening tests is implied but not explicitly stated as the intended use case, and no alternatives are referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the evaluation methodology ('AES75-inspired gates') but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it has side effects, or what inputs are required beyond the schema. This is insufficient for an agent to reason about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, which is concise. However, it is under-specified, lacking critical information about inputs and outputs. Conciseness is not a substitute for completeness; the sentence is too brief to be well-structured for agent comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, multiple parameters, no output schema) and the complete absence of annotation support or schema description coverage, this description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain what a 'protected level ladder' is, how the parameters affect the evaluation, or what the result format will be. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is expected to explain parameter meanings. It does not mention any parameters (levelRuns, minimumCoherence, maximumCompressionDb) or how they relate to the evaluation. The schema provides some type and default information, but no semantic explanation is offered, leaving the agent to guess the purpose of each field.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Evaluate') on a specific resource ('a protected level ladder') with explicit metrics (output compression, coherence loss, limiting) and a methodological reference (AES75-inspired gates). This is clear and domain-specific, but 'protected level ladder' is not defined, and it does not distinguish it from closely related tools like rew_compression_analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, what conditions trigger its use, or how it differs from alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are given, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'preserving a recoverable session backup', which implies state mutation, but does not detail whether changes are committed, how the backup is restored, or what happens to the session after advance. It also omits the required confirmation token behavior, which is a critical execution prerequisite.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is concise and focuses on the core action and a key side effect. It contains no filler, though the critical 'confirmationToken' requirement could be front-loaded for emphasis.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a nested plan object, a required confirmation token, and no output schema), the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the plan's structure, why confirmation is needed, what 'next tools' refers to, or how the tool fits into the guided session workflow. An agent would be unable to call this correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no property descriptions), and the description provides zero explanation of 'plan', 'confirmationToken', or 'confirm'. The nested 'plan' object is defined only as additionalProperties without semantics. An agent cannot infer what values to provide without external context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Advance') and resource ('one exact guided stage'), plus side effects (backup, returning next tools). It clearly conveys the action but does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like audio_session_advance_plan; the 'execute' suffix implies the execution counterpart, but the distinction is not spelled out.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like an active guided session, whether it should be called after audio_session_advance_plan, or when to use the 'confirm' parameter. The description is purely descriptive with no routing or conditional usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Read', which implies a non-destructive operation, but it doesn't disclose whether the tool is idempotent, requires an active session, or has any side effects. It also doesn't mention any access requirements or error conditions. The minimal descriptor adds little beyond what the name implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is so terse that it omits critical information. It is structurally clean but fails to earn its space by being informative; it saves words at the expense of clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'workspace-contained guided calibration session' entails, what the returned data looks like, or what 'sessionFile' refers to. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description makes no mention of parameters at all. The input schema shows two parameters ('home' and 'sessionFile') with only 'sessionFile' required, but the description gives no context on their format, purpose, or relationships. The agent is left entirely to infer parameter meaning from the schema, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Read') and a specific resource ('workspace-contained guided calibration session'). It clearly indicates a read operation on a session, which distinguishes it from planning/execution tools. However, it does not explicitly mention 'status' despite the tool's name, and it doesn't name any sibling alternatives to further differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other session-related tools (e.g., audio_guided_session_execute, audio_session_advance_execute). It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., that a session must already exist) or typical usage context (e.g., checking progress before advancing). There is no indication of when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose redaction behavior and a hash-recheck verification step, which is useful. However, it fails to disclose what happens on hash mismatch, whether the write is destructive, what side effects occur, or what the confirmationToken gates — critical behavior for a write tool with a required confirmation field.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is efficient with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the verb. However, the brevity tips into under-specification — there is no structure for the critical safety-gating and planning context the tool requires, so conciseness helps nothing when the missing content is essential.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a write tool with a required confirmationToken, a nested plan object (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits how the plan is obtained, what the confirmation token is, failure-mode behavior, and any sense of the return/output. An agent lacks the essentials to call this tool safely or correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It entirely fails to explain the three parameters: what plan must contain, what confirmationToken is and how to obtain it, and what confirm does. An agent receiving the 0%-coverage schema plus this description cannot correctly populate a single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (Write), resource (support artifact), and qualifier (exact, redacted, after rechecking source hash). It clearly reads as the action counterpart to the sibling audio_support_bundle_plan, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'after rechecking its source hash' implies sequencing with a prior validation step, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus audio_support_bundle_plan, no mention of prerequisite planning, and no mention that a confirmationToken must first be obtained. Usage context is only implied, never stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that raw traces and identifying metadata are omitted, which is a useful redaction behavior, but it does not describe what the plan contains, whether it writes a file, how it handles hashing, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous content, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Important details about what the plan entails and parameter usage are omitted. While it is short, it fails to earn its place by providing essential information, so it scores low.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and a vague description, the tool is incomplete for an agent to use correctly. The term 'hash-bound' is unexplained, the relationship to execute tools is absent, and the parameters are not elaborated. Given the presence of a specific outputName pattern in the schema, more context is needed to understand the artifact and plan format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no mapping to the three parameters (home, outputName, sourceFile). It does not clarify the role of sourceFile (presumably the input artifact) or outputName (the plan file) or how 'home' affects execution. The description adds no value beyond the schema, which is insufficient given the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action: create a plan for a redacted JSON support artifact, and clarifies that raw traces and identifying metadata are omitted. This distinguishes it from generic plan tools and hints at its purpose, though the term 'hash-bound' is unclear and not further explained. It is clear enough to identify the tool's intent but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling plan/execute pairs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used before an execute counterpart, nor does it specify scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate. The description only implies a planning role but gives no actionable usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the aspects it evaluates, which gives some clue about behavior. However, with no annotations provided, it carries the full burden, and it does not describe side effects, whether it is read-only, what it returns, or how thresholds affect results. The listed criteria are vague and don't explain the evaluation process or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb and packs in the list of evaluated aspects efficiently. It is concise with no wasted words, but the dense technical list might be slightly overwhelming; still, it is well-structured and compact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how bins are processed, what thresholds do, what the output looks like, or what 'evaluate' means in terms of results. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on this description alone; it needs much more detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given that schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It does not mention any of the 9 parameters, their meaning, or how they are used (e.g., bins, minimumCoherence, thresholds). The description is entirely about evaluation criteria, not about inputs, so agents cannot know how to set parameters correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Evaluate') and a specific resource ('complex transfer-function coherence, phase confidence, harmonic contamination, excitation, timing variance, and clock drift'). This makes the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rew_measurement_quality, which could have overlapping functionality, so it loses a point.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only states what it evaluates, not when to invoke it, leaving the agent without routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It only says 'Inventory' which suggests a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly state side effects, permissions, or whether it modifies anything. It also omits any details about pagination, returns, or error conditions. This is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence and concise, but it is under-specified. It is front-loaded with the verb, but the structure offers no separate sections for usage or parameters. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It fails to explain what 'inventory' returns (e.g., list of items, counts, metadata) and how the 'home' parameter affects the operation. An agent would have to guess the return format and parameter semantics, making the tool difficult to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage for the 'home' parameter, and the tool description does not mention it at all. The agent is left without any meaning for the parameter — no hint about what 'home' refers to (e.g., workspace path, home directory, target folder) or its role. This is a critical gap that the description should have filled.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it inventories profiles, sessions, measurements, backups, and reports in the AudioCalibration workspace. It uses a specific verb and resource list with a scope, which is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from other inventory tools like audio_host_inventory or rew_audio_inventory, so it's slightly under a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative inventory tools. The scope (AudioCalibration workspace) is implied but not contrasted with other inventory resources. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions two behavioral traits – 'hash-bound' and 'automatic configuration backup' – but does not explain what 'hash-bound' means (e.g., idempotency, deduplication), what the backup entails, or whether the tool actually executes anything or only creates a plan. The description neither states side effects nor confirms a read-only nature. This is a significant gap for a tool that presumably generates a plan rather than acting.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence with no fluff. However, conciseness here sacrifices clarity – the phrase 'hash-bound' is jargon without elaboration, and the sentence does not front-load the most critical information (that it is a planning tool). It is appropriately short but not structured to be immediately informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a planning tool with a sibling execute tool, the description fails to explain the plan/execute relationship, the meaning of 'hash-bound', the backup behavior, or what the tool returns. It lacks essential context for an agent to confidently invoke it correctly in a workflow. The low parameter count and absence of output schema make it simpler, but the description still leaves too many open questions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter information. It does not explain what 'action', 'presetName', or 'home' mean, nor how they relate to the 'hash-bound' or backup behavior. The enum and pattern are present in the schema but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. The agent is left entirely to guess parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('create') and a resource ('JamesDSP preset operation') with a distinctive qualifier ('hash-bound'). It clearly indicates the tool produces an operation related to JamesDSP presets. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'jamesdsp_preset_execute' – the phrase 'create a ... operation' could be read as either planning or executing. The tool name 'plan' implies planning but the description doesn't confirm that, so it is clear but not fully distinguishing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jamesdsp_preset_execute, jamesdsp_snapshot, or other plan tools. There is no mention of preconditions, ordering, or exclusion criteria. Agents would have to infer the intended usage solely from the tool name, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the purpose. It doesn't indicate whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it modifies data, or any side effects. The phrase 'without treating the chosen gate as universal' hints at a non-default behavior, but it's vague and doesn't clarify operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff, which is good for conciseness. However, it lacks structure and does not front-load critical information like usage context or parameter hints. The sentence earns its place but is insufficient for a tool with 8 parameters, making it incomplete rather than appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain inputs, outputs, algorithmic behavior, or any operational context. An agent would need to infer everything from parameter names and defaults, which is risky. The description fails to provide necessary context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the 8 parameters or their meaning. It references 'direct-window' and 'later reflected' which loosely map to directWindowMs and lateWindowMs, but it doesn't explain parameter roles, units, or relationships. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving agents to guess parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear, specific action: separating direct-window and later reflected impulse energy. It differentiates from other analysis tools by focusing on a methodological nuance ('without treating the chosen gate as universal'), which helps distinguish it from generic impulse or crossover analyses. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the tool name or the resource type (e.g., impulse response), relying on context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when to avoid it. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or sibling tools. The only hint is the methodological caveat, but it doesn't explain when this analysis is appropriate. An agent would have no basis to choose this over similar analysis tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create' without indicating side effects, prerequisites, or the meaning of 'hash-bound'. Whether the plan is safely read-only or requires existing measurements is unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, but it is too terse to be informative. It front-loads the action but sacrifices necessary detail, making the conciseness counterproductive.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 params, one nested object, no output schema) and no annotations, the one-sentence description is severely incomplete. It omits parameter details, prerequisites, and the meaning of key terms, leaving the agent unable to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. The schema lacks property descriptions, so agents have no information about processName enum semantics, measurementIndices meaning, or the structure of the parameters object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action (create) and resource (REW derived-trace plan), and the 'plan' suffix differentiates it from execution tools like rew_generate_trace_execute. However, 'allowlisted hash-bound' is ambiguous jargon that an agent may not interpret correctly without additional context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus rew_generate_trace or rew_generate_trace_execute. The agent must infer from naming conventions that planning precedes execution, but there is no explicit instruction or alternative mention.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level action without any details on side effects, reversibility, permissions, or return behavior. The phrase 'hash-bound' is undefined, and there is no mention of whether this operation is read-only, writes anything, or what the plan contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, which is concise and front-loaded. However, the brevity comes at the cost of essential information, so while it earns a high score for conciseness, it is not fully effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is severely incomplete for a tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. An agent would not know what the plan looks like, what 'hash-bound' means, or what values to pass for 'file' and 'home'. It is far from the minimum viable definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. 'file' and 'home' are left undefined; the agent cannot infer their purpose or format, which is critical for a tool with a required parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action (Create) and resource (a hash-bound plan to load a workspace-contained MDAT into REW). It distinguishes from execution siblings like rew_load_file_execute by indicating it only creates a plan, but the term 'hash-bound' is left undefined, introducing some ambiguity about the plan's nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rew_load_file or rew_load_file_execute. It does not indicate prerequisites, sequencing (plan before execute), or any conditions that would select this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Check') but does not state whether it modifies anything, what happens if the API is unavailable, or what the response format is. It adds minimal context beyond the raw action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), but the description lacks essential context: what exactly is returned, what constitutes an 'inventory of live measurements', and how it behaves under failures. Without annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to call it correctly and interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is one optional parameter (timeoutMs) with schema constraints (default, min, max) but 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage. The parameter name and constraints provide some self-evident meaning, but the description adds no value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('local REW API'), but 'inventory live measurements' is ambiguous—it could mean listing measurements or simply verifying their presence. It does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like rew_audio_inventory or rew_capability_negotiate, which also deal with API/inventory status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. The one-line description gives no context about typical scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only says 'Create a plan' which implies mutation-free planning, but it does not mention whether this plan is persisted, what side effects it has, or what the plan contains. The 'hash-bound evidence-tagged' is a behavioral characteristic but is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is vague and under-specified, using unexplained jargon. It earns a mid-score because it is brief and to the point, but not sufficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a complex required parameter (profile with 13 fields), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain how to construct a valid plan, what evidence tagging means, or what the returned plan looks like. An agent would be unable to call this tool correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions no parameters at all. The single required parameter 'profile' is a complex nested object, but the description adds no meaning about its structure or purpose. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Create') and a resource ('speaker-profile save/update plan'), and adds distinguishing features ('hash-bound evidence-tagged'). It is clear that this tool creates a plan rather than executing, but the jargon 'hash-bound evidence-tagged' may be ambiguous without context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like speaker_profile_save or speaker_profile_save_execute. The naming convention suggests plan/execute separation, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this plan-creating tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior and side effects, but it only says 'Plan'. It does not state whether planning is read-only, whether it modifies any state, whether it requires a running REW instance, or what the output structure looks like. It does not mention any computational cost or external dependencies. The term 'fingerprint' hints at a configuration snapshot, but this is not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, so it is concise. However, it is a long, dense sentence that packs many concepts without clear structure or hierarchy. Front-loading the key idea ('Plan 4-6 traces') is good, but the trailing list of attributes is ambiguous and not broken down. It lacks the structured clarity that would aid an agent parsing it quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 13 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and a complex planning scenario, the description is woefully incomplete. An agent cannot determine the required parameters (beyond the obvious channels), the output format, the relationship to other planning tools, or any side effects. This is far from sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for unnamed parameters. The description mentions 'left, right, and combined' which maps to the 'channels' parameter, and possibly 'route, volume, DSP, microphone, preset, and sweep fingerprint' correspond to several parameters, but it does not explicitly link any parameter name or explain their formats, constraints, or interactions. With 13 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Plan') and a specific object ('4-6 separately retained left, right, and combined traces') with a list of attributes (route, volume, DSP, microphone, preset, sweep fingerprint). This distinguishes it from generic 'plan' tools and suggests it is about a multi-channel repeated measurement session. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling planners like 'rew_measurement_plan' or 'rew_generate_trace_plan', so it is not fully unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, such as needing an existing REW session or prior configuration. It does not state when not to use it or direct the agent to a sibling (e.g., 'rew_measurement_plan' for a single measurement). The agent is left to infer usage from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this tool creates a plan (rather than executing), but it doesn't explain what 'hash-bound' implies, whether any side effects occur, what the plan contains, or how it relates to the execute counterpart. Minimal behavioral context is provided beyond the tautological 'create a plan.'
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word carries intent. This is a model of brevity, even though it sacrifices substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four parameters, including a complex array of filter objects, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of each parameter, the meaning of the format options, the 'hash-bound' behavior, or how this plan tool integrates with its execute sibling. An agent would be hard-pressed to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the four parameters (file, home, format, filters). It mentions none of them, leaving the agent to rely solely on the raw schema constraints, which is insufficient especially for the complex filters array and format enum.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a ... filter export plan.' The 'hash-bound cross-platform' qualifier adds scope that distinguishes it from generic plan tools. It differentiates from sibling 'execute' tools (e.g., audio_filter_export_execute) by explicitly saying 'plan,' though it doesn't name alternatives directly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor about prerequisites or context. It merely states what it does without any 'use when' or 'not for' instructions, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the operation is non-blocking ('without holding an MCP request open'), but does not disclose whether it modifies state, what happens for unknown job IDs, or what the response contains. It lacks details on error handling, job completion statuses, or retry behavior. This is minimal for a polling tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence with no fluff. The key idea is front-loaded with 'Poll an asynchronous analysis job.' It is appropriately concise for such a straightforward operation, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return format, job state values, error scenarios, and permission requirements. An agent calling this tool would not know what to expect in the response or how to handle failures, making it insufficient for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it mentions none. The two parameters (jobId and includeResult) are left entirely to the schema. While jobId's format is defined, its meaning and includeResult's effect on response payload are not clarified. The description adds zero value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action (poll) on a specific resource (asynchronous analysis job). It is clear in intention, but does not differentiate from sibling status tools like audio_session_status, though the target resource (analysis job vs. session) is distinct. The verb 'poll' is precise and helps an agent understand the tool's role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking long-running jobs without holding MCP request open, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any conditions to avoid using it. There's no mention of polling intervals, when to cancel, or related tools. An agent is left to infer context from the single sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a decision action but does not state whether it is read-only, what side effects exist, how results are returned, or what criteria trigger accepted vs. rejected outcomes beyond the parameter names.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. No fluff, but it lacks detail that would make it more useful without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 14 parameters, 8 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the accept/reject logic, how to set thresholds, required relationships between before/after entries, or how to interpret results. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its 14 parameters, and the description only gives a high-level overview. It hints at concepts like 'level match' and 'repeatability' but does not explain specific parameters (e.g., beforeControlFingerprint, minimumTonalImprovementDb) or how they interact, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: accept or reject an EQ based on before/after traces, fingerprints, level match, and quality gates. It names the specific mechanism and is distinct from sibling tools that focus on measurement or planning, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other verification or proposal tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions for acceptance, or when to prefer this over siblings like audio_eq_proposal or audio_multisource_optimize.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose what a 'report plan' is, whether it is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. 'Hash-bound' is unexplained, and optional curves are mentioned but not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no redundant words. The main action is front-loaded, and the optional features are stated compactly. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly insufficient. An agent cannot infer how to construct a valid request, what the plan should contain, or what happens after execution. Missing definitions of parameters and expected behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter details. It mentions 'raw, 1/48, ERB, and frequency-dependent curves' but does not map them to any of the 11 parameters. Required parameters baseName and assessment are entirely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb 'Create' and resource 'report plan' with output formats (Markdown, HTML, JSON). However, 'hash-bound' is ambiguous and the description does not differentiate from sibling plan tools like audio_eq_proposal or audio_filter_export_plan, which also create plans.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or why one would choose this plan tool over others. Only a single sentence describing the action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies input, what the return format looks like, or any performance implications. The list of metrics is useful but omits crucial behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that lists the computed metrics, making it concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is too sparse to cover necessary context, so while efficient, it does not maximize value per sentence given the missing information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the metrics mean, how they are derived, what the output structure is, or any constraints or edge cases. The agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter semantics. It mentions 'impulse response' which loosely relates to the 'impulse' parameter, but provides no explanation for sampleRateHz, directIndex, or minimumDecayRSquared. The agent cannot infer how to correctly set these parameters from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool calculates specific acoustic metrics (EDT, T20/T30, C50/C80, etc.) from an impulse response. It is specific about the verb (Calculate) and resource (impulse response). However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools that also analyze acoustic measurements, such as audio_room_spatial_summary or audio_transfer_quality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this tool preferred over other analysis tools. The agent is left without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It mentions 'native mutation is currently supported only through pactl on Linux' which hints at underlying mechanism, but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or what the plan actually does. The term 'hash-bound' is undefined, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief, two sentences, with no fluff. The primary purpose is stated first. However, its terseness might be conflated with lack of important detail, but for conciseness and front-loading, it scores well.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a planning tool leading to execution, with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It gives no indication of what the plan contains, how it relates to audio_route_execute, or how to use it correctly. The pactl mention hints at Linux dependency but no further context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All four parameters (sink, source, sinkMuted, sourceMuted) are undocumented in the schema (0% coverage), and the description provides zero information about their meaning or usage. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Create a hash-bound host audio routing plan') which distinguishes it from sibling execute tools like audio_route_execute. However, 'hash-bound' is ambiguous and not explained, leaving some purpose fuzziness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this plan tool versus audio_route_execute or other plan/execute pairs. The note about pactl on Linux is a platform constraint, not usage direction, and does not indicate when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('List') but doesn't explicitly state it, nor does it mention any limitations, side effects, authentication requirements, or how 'versioned' and 'evidence-labelled' affect the response. The description is minimal and doesn't go beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and to the point, though it arguably sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. Structurally it scores well for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too sparse for a registry tool in a complex domain. It doesn't explain what 'listening target starting points' are, what 'versioned' and 'evidence-labelled' imply, or how the optional deviceClass parameter influences output. With no output schema, the agent is left without enough context to call it correctly or interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, deviceClass, is an enum but has no schema description and is entirely absent from the tool description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it fails to explain the parameter's meaning, purpose, or how it filters results. The agent has no semantic guidance beyond the enum values themselves.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('List') and a specific resource ('versioned, evidence-labelled listening target starting points'). It conveys the core purpose clearly and distinguishes it from generic listing tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like audio_evidence_registry.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 behavioral disclosure. It doesn't indicate whether the tool is read-only, requires specific input data, has side effects, or what the output looks like. The lack of any behavioral context is a significant gap for a complex analysis tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient, but it lacks structure and detail. It lists multiple analysis aspects without elaboration, so while not verbose, it doesn't earn its place by providing actionable information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, input expectations, or return values, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optional Schroeder frequency' hinting at rt60Seconds and roomVolumeM3 but doesn't explain the roles of ids, lowHz, highHz, or the exact mapping. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Analyze' and specifies the resources: multi-seat consistency, modal candidates, seat outliers, and Schroeder frequency. This distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like rew_crossover_analysis or rew_direct_late_analysis, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other analysis tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description only states what it analyzes, not when it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'creates a plan' and points to an execute tool, but it does not reveal side effects, permissions, whether the plan is persisted or transient, what 'hash-bound' implies, or any safety considerations. The lack of any annotation coverage makes this a significant gap for a mutation-oriented tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose (alias, create plan) and the next step (execute with the specified tool). There is no fluff, and the critical information is front-loaded. It earns points for brevity, though it sacrifices completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the sibling tools (rew_save_all_plan, rew_save_all_execute) and the absence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the relationship with rew_save_all_plan, does not explain the parameters, and does not describe what the plan looks like or its return value. An agent would struggle to know if this alias should be used instead of the plan tool, and it lacks essential details for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about any of the three parameters (saveFile, home, note). The required saveFile parameter is entirely unexplained, and there is no indication of what values home and note should take or how they affect the plan. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a compatibility alias that creates a hash-bound Save-all plan, and tells the agent to execute it with rew_save_all_execute. The verb 'create' and resource 'Save-all plan' are specific, and the tool is distinguished from its execute counterpart. However, it does not explain what a Save-all plan is or how it differs from the sibling rew_save_all_plan, so it is not fully self-contained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says it is a compatibility alias, implying it is for backward compatibility, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus rew_save_all_plan, which appears as a sibling and likely serves the same purpose. There is no guidance on whether the agent should prefer the canonical tool or when the alias is appropriate. The only instruction is to execute with rew_save_all_execute, which is insufficient for choosing between alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Read' with no elaboration on return format, error behavior for a missing id, or whether 'home' affects the result. For a read operation the agent can only assume a read-only, possibly unhelpfully vague profile is returned. This is a minimal disclosure with no annotations to back it up.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler words — every token earns its place. It is slightly under-specified, but as conciseness alone it is near-ideal, with the purpose placed at the start.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what is returned, what 'home' means, and the significance of the id pattern. It does none of this, leaving the agent short of the context needed to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions no parameters at all. The 'id' and 'home' fields get no semantics or usage hints beyond their raw schema types, so an agent cannot determine what values to supply or what 'home' changes. This is the weakest dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and a named resource ('workspace speaker profile'), which clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from the save-family siblings (speaker_profile_save, _plan, _execute). However, it doesn't explain what a speaker profile contains or how it relates to the many rew/audio read tools, so an agent must infer the resource's scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as speaker_profile_save or other read/status tools in the large sibling set. It states only what the tool does, not when it is the right choice or when it is not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key trait that no download occurs until the execute tool confirms, which is important. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as persistence, side effects, or output format, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is not front-loaded with the most critical information (the parameter semantics are missing, and the no-download behavior is secondary). It is concise but inadequately structured for quick parsing of key facts.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description does not explain what a 'hash-bound plan' is, what 'pinned' means, how licensing affects usage, or what the plan contains. It is insufficient for an agent to understand the full context needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description makes no mention of any parameters (datasetId, maximumBytes, licenseAccepted, home). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent without meaning for the required fields or their constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a hash-bound plan') and the resource ('one pinned licensed dataset artifact'). It distinguishes from the sibling audio_dataset_download_execute by explicitly noting that no download occurs until the execute tool is confirmed, making the planning role clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage as a planning step before execution but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like audio_dataset_catalog or audio_dataset_download_execute. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or conditions that select this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description is responsible for behavioral disclosure. It does mention backup and rollback, which are meaningful behaviors not derivable from the tool name alone. However, it omits key aspects like the mandatory confirmation token, what happens on verify failure, or whether the operation is atomic. It adds some context but is not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. The action list is front-loaded with the key verb. However, the enumeration of steps is a bit cluttered, and the main purpose is buried after the first verb. Still, it is appropriately compact for what it conveys.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is the sole source of information. It fails to explain the confirmation workflow, the role of the token, what the return value is, or critical edge cases. For a tool that applies a plan with backup/rollback, this is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It references only the 'plan' parameter implicitly ('DSP filter-file plan') and says nothing about the 'confirm' boolean or 'confirmationToken' string. An agent would have no idea why those parameters exist or how to use them. This is a serious gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('apply') and resource ('an exact configured DSP filter-file plan'), and the multi-step nature ('Back up, apply, verify, and roll back') clarifies the overall operation. It is clearly distinct from the sibling audio_dsp_apply_plan, though not explicitly naming that alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used after creating a plan (audio_dsp_apply_plan) or under what conditions to prefer it. The phrase 'exact configured plan' hints at a precondition but is not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Cancel or suppress' but does not clarify whether the job actually stops, whether results are simply hidden, whether cancellation is reversible, or what happens if the job has already completed. The ambiguity between 'cancel' and 'suppress' is a significant omission.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource efficiently, which is ideal for quick agent scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a potentially destructive async-job operation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too incomplete. It does not explain confirm behavior, post-conditions, idempotency, or error scenarios. An agent would need to guess or inspect sibling patterns to call it safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no parameter-level meaning. It never mentions the required 'jobId' semantics in a useful way and completely omits the 'confirm' parameter, which likely controls confirmation of a destructive action. The schema's type/format hints are all the agent has.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Cancel or suppress') and names the resource ('result of an asynchronous analysis job'), so an agent understands the core action. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like audio_job_status or rew_measurement_cancel, but the async job scope is reasonably clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as audio_job_status for checking job state or rew_measurement_cancel for a different kind of cancellation. The description implies it applies to asynchronous analysis jobs, but no explicit when/when-not conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output will separate preference from objective quality, which hints at the summary's structure, but it does not discuss side effects, required permissions, or any mutating behavior. For a summarization tool, this is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and the key distinction. It is concise with no filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded. This is an example of effective brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 required parameters (including a complex nested object and array) and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'plan' refers to, what 'responses' contain, how the summary is generated, or what the output looks like. The only hint is the preference/quality separation, which is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description does not mention 'plan' or 'responses,' nor does it explain their roles or structure. Since the schema itself only provides type info (object and array) and doesn't describe semantics, the description must compensate but fails to do so entirely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Summarize a completed listening test.' It also adds a specific nuance about keeping preference separate from objective quality, which helps distinguish it from related tools like audio_laboratory_listening_report. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative, so it slightly misses the top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says what it does, not when it should be chosen over audio_listening_test_plan or audio_laboratory_listening_report. It does not provide any context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only summarization, but does not describe the output format, how variance is computed (e.g., standard deviation, range, min/max), whether the order of positions matters, or how invalid/incomplete metric values are handled.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose efficiently, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Inadequate for the given context: one undocumented parameter at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not clarify the expected structure of the positions array beyond what the schema shows, what statistical summary is produced, or what domain assumptions apply. An agent has little to go on when constructing valid input.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only generically says 'room-acoustic metrics.' The single 'positions' parameter is an array of objects with four numeric fields that remain entirely undocumented. The description does not map the metric names (clarityC50Db, clarityC80Db, definitionD50Percent, centerTimeMs) to their meaning beyond the vague phrase.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb ('Summarize') and resource ('position-to-position variance for room-acoustic metrics'). It names the specific metrics implied by the schema. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like audio_spatial_layout_assessment, audio_room_metrics, or rew_multiseat_analysis, which could also handle multi-position room acoustic data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple overlapping siblings (audio_room_metrics, audio_spatial_layout_assessment, rew_multiseat_analysis), agents get no help choosing the right one. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what it returns (e.g., combined uncertainty, expanded uncertainty, coverage intervals), how it handles invalid inputs, or what the 'standards-claim boundary' implies. This lack of detail makes it difficult for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior beyond the basic propagation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids fluff and clearly states the method. However, it is overly sparse for a tool with this complexity; while brevity is good, it sacrifices essential information. Still, as a standalone statement, it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has moderate complexity (nested objects, multiple optional fields) and 0% schema coverage. The description provides no information about the return value, how to interpret results, or the criteria for choosing this linear method over Monte Carlo. It also fails to explain the 'standards-claim boundary' concept, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly or choose it appropriately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. The schema defines a complex 'components' array with fields like distribution, sensitivity, coverageFactor, and degreesOfFreedom, but the description adds no meaning about how to populate these fields or what the 'coverageProbability' constraint (0.95) means. The agent must infer entirely from the schema, which is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Propagate'), a precise resource ('calibrated measurement uncertainty'), and the method ('GUM-style linear combination' and 'explicit standards-claim boundary'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling 'audio_uncertainty_monte_carlo' tool, which implies a Monte Carlo method, so an agent can distinguish them solely from the description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the alternative 'audio_uncertainty_monte_carlo'. The description does not state conditions like 'for linear error propagation' or 'when analytical solutions are preferred over simulation', leaving the choice to inference. This is a significant gap given the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'deterministic' and the specific sampling style, which hints at reproducibility via a seed, but it does not describe the output format, any side effects, whether the operation is read-only, or any computational or resource implications. Without an output schema, the absence of return-value information is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is efficient and to the point. However, given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, one being a nested array), a slightly longer description could have added useful detail without becoming verbose. Still, it earns a high score for structure and clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a Monte Carlo simulation tool with a nested array parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is far too sparse to be complete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the estimated uncertainty distribution, confidence intervals), what the 'estimate' parameter represents, or how results should be interpreted. Combined with zero parameter descriptions, an agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameter descriptions are entirely absent. The tool description does not compensate; it mentions the supported distributions (which map to the 'distribution' parameter) but provides no explanation of 'seed', 'trials', 'estimate', 'sensitivity', 'coverageFactor', or 'degreesOfFreedom'. An agent would have no idea what these parameters mean or how to set them correctly beyond their names and constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Propagate'), a specific resource ('input uncertainties'), and the method ('deterministic JCGM-101-style Monte Carlo sampling'). It also names the supported distributions (normal, rectangular, triangular), making the tool's core function unambiguous. Although it does not explicitly enumerate sibling distinctions, the specificity of the method and distributions clearly differentiates it from other uncertainty-related tools like audio_uncertainty_budget.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any selection criteria, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. While the name and description imply it is for Monte Carlo uncertainty propagation, an agent would not know if it should choose this over audio_uncertainty_budget or audio_repeatability_bootstrap without additional context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states an analysis action, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, data requirements, or output expectations. This is insufficient given the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is appropriately concise and wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with complex parameters (an array of objects) and no output schema, the one-line description is grossly incomplete. It does not define expected inputs, output format, or how it integrates with the REW analysis workflow. The agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides zero explanation of the two required parameters, 'entries' and 'levelsDbfs'. With schema description coverage at 0%, the agent has no semantic understanding of what these arrays represent or how to populate them. The schema only offers structural details, so the description completely fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (analyze), the specific resource (matched REW sweep-level ladder), and the goal (frequency-dependent output compression). It conveys a specific analytical purpose that distinguishes it from sibling tools like rew_crossover_analysis, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other REW analysis tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Return ... views,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not state whether prior state is required (does 'id' need a loaded measurement/session?), what the return value contains or its format, whether there are side effects, or failure modes. For an analysis tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler; the core idea (two views, one engineering one perceptual) is front-loaded and the rationale follows immediately. It is efficiently written, though the brevity is partly at the expense of the parameter and usage detail the other dimensions penalize.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 7-parameter, parameter-heavy analysis tool with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far from sufficient. It captures the conceptual intent but omits operational essentials: what 'id' refers to, what the returned views are, parameter semantics, and prerequisites. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without inspecting elsewhere.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across all 7 parameters, so the description bears full responsibility for explaining them. It offers only faint conceptual hints — 'ERB-perceptual' maps to stepErb/widthErb and 'minimally smoothed' to smoothingTransitionHz — but it gives no units, ranges, defaults, or interactions for lowHz, highHz, modalBoundaryHz, or the others. Seven undocumented parameters with near-zero compensation earns a low score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Return raw/minimally smoothed and ERB-perceptual views') and gives a genuine rationale — keeping narrow engineering defects separate from broad listening interpretation. This helps conceptually separate it from analysis siblings like rew_crossover_analysis. However, it never names an alternative and the deliverable is abstract ('views' — data, a figure, a trace?), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool named, despite many closely related analysis siblings (rew_crossover_analysis, rew_multiseat_analysis, rew_direct_late_analysis, rew_compression_analysis). The 'so narrow engineering defects remain separate' clause implies a use case, but it does not say when an agent should pick this over other analyses or what conditions make it inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is cancellable and asynchronous, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects, what happens to the job, or any state changes. It provides some transparency but lacks depth for a 12-parameter async operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and the follow-up step. There is no verbosity or redundancy. It is appropriately short for the minimal content it conveys, though it may be too terse given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a 'multidimensional listening assessment' entails, what the parameters control, what the result looks like, or any constraints. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without external documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of any parameter. With 12 parameters including required ones like entries and deviceClass, the agent has no semantic guidance beyond the raw schema. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (start) and resource (multidimensional listening assessment), and notes it is asynchronous and cancellable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like audio_listening_test_plan or audio_laboratory_listening_plan, but the term 'multidimensional' and the polling hint give it some distinctiveness. A clear but not fully differentiated purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives one operational hint: to poll audio_job_status for the result. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context on selection criteria. For a complex tool in a large sibling set, this is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'create a plan' but does not clarify that this tool does not actually launch REW, what side effects exist, what 'hash-bound' means, or whether it returns a plan identifier. This ambiguity leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's actual behavior and output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and condition. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitted essential details, so it earns a high score for style but not perfection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool. It fails to explain key concepts (e.g., 'hash-bound', what a 'plan' is, whether it executes or only prepares), return values, or how the plan is consumed by sibling tools like rew_launch_execute. This is a notable gap for a planning tool that likely feeds into an execution step.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'automatic discovery or an explicit user-supplied executable path,' which indirectly covers the executablePath parameter, but it completely omits startupTimeoutSeconds. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to explain the timeout parameter's purpose, constraints, or default behavior, leaving half the parameters undocumented semantically.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('create') and resource ('hash-bound plan to start REW') and specifies a condition (local API offline). It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool rew_launch_execute, which presumably executes the plan. However, the term 'hash-bound' is unexplained and vague, which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the local API is offline, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as rew_launch_execute (which likely executes the plan) or rew_install_discover. It does not mention when not to use it or distinguish scenarios necessitating this planning step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses a confirmation requirement, which is a behavioral trait. With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects, but it only says 'after explicit confirmation' without detailing what happens on load (e.g., overwriting current state, auth requirements). It adds minimal context beyond the schema fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. However, essential detail is missing, which is penalized in other dimensions; the brevity itself is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three parameters (including a nested plan object) and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It fails to explain what the plan is, what 'exact hashed MDAT' means, or how the confirmation token is used, leaving an agent unable to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only alludes to 'explicit confirmation' without explaining the confirmationToken format or purpose, and the 'plan' object is completely unexplained. No meaningful parameter semantics beyond a vague reference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action (load) and resource (exact hashed MDAT) with a condition (after explicit confirmation). It distinguishes from siblings like rew_load_file by the 'exact hashed' and 'confirmation' aspects, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other load tools (e.g., rew_load_file, rew_load_file_plan). It mentions 'after explicit confirmation' but does not explain prerequisites or selecting this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it will not overwrite an existing artifact, which is a critical behavioral trait, and mentions 'verify' implying a post-execution check. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and lacks details on side effects, auth requirements, error handling, or what happens if an artifact already exists (e.g., refusal vs. skipping). It gives some transparency but not enough for a complex operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence that front-loads the core action and constraint. There is no fluff, but the brevity sacrifices crucial details. As written, it is not an example of under-specification (which would be a 2), but it is terse enough that it falls short of a perfect 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (nested plan object, confirmation token, verification step), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is significantly under-specified. It does not explain the return value, the nature of 'verification', or how to construct a valid plan. An agent would need additional context to call this tool correctly. This is a major gap for an execution tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage (0%), so the description must explain the parameters. It does not. 'plan', 'confirm', and 'confirmationToken' are not elaborated. 'plan' is a nested object with no structure explained, and the relationship between 'confirm' and 'confirmationToken' is unclear. This is a severe gap for a tool with required parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Execute and verify an exact REW Save-all plan') and a key constraint ('without overwriting an existing artifact'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rew_save_all and rew_save_all_plan by referencing a plan object, implying this is the execution stage. However, it doesn't explicitly say it is the execute counterpart or what 'Save-all' entails, so not a full 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rew_save_all or rew_save_all_plan. The description mentions 'an exact REW Save-all plan' but does not explain the prerequisite of having a plan or when to prefer this over direct execution. No exclusions or conditions are provided, so the agent is left to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the core action, not what 'hash-bound' means, potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., live REW measurements), or whether it is read-only. Transparency is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. While it lacks detail, the structure is clean and free of fluff, earning a high score on conciseness even though it is under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter descriptions, this tool demands far more context. It omits critical details: what a 'plan' entails, how to proceed after creation, and descriptions of 'home' and 'note'. An agent would have to rely on convention or other means to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any of the three parameters (home, note, saveFile). Only 'saveFile' is inferred via 'MDAT'; 'home' and 'note' are completely unexplained, leaving the agent without essential parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('hash-bound plan to save all live REW measurements'), and a specific output ('new workspace MDAT'). It clearly distinguishes itself from execution siblings like 'rew_save_all_execute' by focusing on the planning phase.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention a corresponding execute tool, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The '_plan' suffix implies a workflow but is not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that a backup is made before changes, that verification occurs, and that rollback is possible—these are meaningful behavioral traits. However, it omits details on how confirmation works, what verification entails, and the exact trigger or consequences of rollback, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and to the point. It front-loads the primary action ('Save an exact speaker profile') before listing added features. There is no filler or redundancy, though a breakdown of the safeguard steps could be more structured without hurting conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex tool requiring a plan object and a confirmation token, yet the description omits the confirmation flow, the structure of the plan, and the meaning of rollback in practice. It also fails to mention the relationship to speaker_profile_save_plan, which is critical for correct usage. Without output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke this tool safely and correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its parameters, so the description must compensate. It does not mention plan, confirm, or confirmationToken at all. The tool name implies 'plan' is the target profile and 'confirmationToken' is a token, but the description itself provides no semantic guidance. This is a critical failure for a tool with three parameters and a nested object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the core action: 'Save an exact speaker profile'. The mention of 'pre-change backup, verification, and rollback' adds specificity and hints at a more advanced operation than a plain save. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like speaker_profile_save, leaving some ambiguity about when this tool is the preferred choice.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither mentions the plan/execute pairing with speaker_profile_save_plan nor contrasts with speaker_profile_save. The confirmationToken and confirm fields imply a two-step confirmation flow, but no conditions or prerequisites are described. This leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Report,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., no side effects), explain what 'integration support' means, or describe the nature of the returned information. The description is too sparse to provide meaningful transparency beyond the verb itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with a clear structure: verb plus a list of reported items. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters. However, the brevity sacrifices informativeness—each listed item (e.g., 'targets') is ambiguous, so while the structure is efficient, the content could be sharper.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description should fully clarify what information the agent will receive and how it relates to the broader capability set. It lists items but leaves terms like 'targets' and 'optional integration support' undefined. It also fails to distinguish this from sibling capability tools, making it incomplete for an agent deciding whether to call it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
This tool has zero parameters, so the input schema already trivially covers all parameter semantics (there are none). According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add anything. It correctly adds no parameter-related details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a verb ('Report') and lists specific resources (platform, safety limits, REW endpoint, targets, integration support), giving a general sense of a capabilities query tool. However, it does not differentiate this from numerous sibling tools like audio_dsp_adapter_capabilities or rew_diagnostic_capabilities, leaving ambiguity about its exact scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context for when this specific 'audio_capabilities' query is appropriate, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects. The word 'Audit' suggests a read-only inspection, but it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it describe what happens on failure or what the output format is. This ambiguity is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists the audit targets and criteria. There is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the schema (four arrays with many nested fields) and the absence of an output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to explain the tool's role relative to other artifact tools, the meaning of 'audit' in terms of side effects, or what the caller should expect in response. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description names the four array parameters (synthetic, external, loopback, cross-tool) and the audited properties, giving some semantic context over the raw schema. However, it does not explain the structure of each artifact object or how the audit results are conveyed, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Audit') and specifies the resource categories (synthetic, external, loopback, cross-tool reference artifacts) and the attributes checked (hashes, licenses, independence, provenance, regression tolerances). It clearly conveys the tool's function, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from nearby validation tools like audio_artifact_validate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audio_artifact_validate or audio_dataset_catalog. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'readiness gates' and 'blinded randomized' but does not explain what those entail, whether the tool validates inputs, what it returns (plan vs. execution), or any side effects. The output is completely unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and avoids redundancy. However, it lacks a structured breakdown of key aspects, which slightly reduces its structural clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 2 required, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not describe return values, preconditions for the readiness gates, or how the plan is produced. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it offers no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain that 'method' expects MUSHRA or BS.1116, how 'systems' should be structured with roles, or what 'seed', 'trials', 'excerpts', and 'listeners' represent. The description is far too vague for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Create'), a well-defined object type (blinded randomized MUSHRA- or BS.1116-inspired trials), and distinctive features (hidden-reference and anchor readiness gates). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from generic listening-test tools like audio_listening_test_plan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as audio_listening_test_plan or other planning tools. The description implies a standard-method context but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or recommend this tool over others for specific scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it produces statistics, implying a computation, but does not clarify whether it is read-only, requires prior data from a plan, or has any side effects. The description does not reveal what happens to the input or what the output format is, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the main action. However, it is brief to the point of vagueness, omitting necessary details. It is not overly verbose, but the lack of structure (e.g., breaking down inputs and outputs) makes it less effective than it could be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has complex nested inputs (plan object, responses array with multiple fields), no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need for a prior listening plan), output format, or interpretation of the statistics. An agent would lack critical information to invoke it correctly and understand results, making the description incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the 'plan' or 'responses' parameters beyond the schema's structural definitions. It does not clarify how the responses relate to the plan or what fields like 'repeatGroup' mean for the statistics. The description adds little semantic value over the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool produces descriptive confidence and repeatability statistics for controlled listening trials. The verb 'produce' and resource 'statistics' are specific, and the mention of 'completed controlled listening trials' gives context. However, it does not name sibling tools to differentiate, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for completed controlled listening trials' implies it should be used after trials are finished, providing some context. But it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives like audio_listening_test_report, leaving usage guidance partially implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool applies a routing plan (implying state mutation), verifies the result, and returns rollback values, which hints at safety mechanisms. However, it doesn't specify what side effects occur, what verification entails, or the nature of the rollback values, leaving significant behavioral opacity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly crafted sentence that front-loads the core action and includes verification and rollback outcomes. Every word contributes; there is no fluff or repetition. This is a model of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity—3 parameters including a nested arbitrary object, a required confirmation token, no output schema, and no annotations—the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the parameters, the confirmation flow, or the expected output format, leaving an agent unable to correctly invoke the tool without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It doesn't mention 'plan', 'confirm', or 'confirmationToken' at all. An agent has no clue what 'confirm' controls or how to obtain a 'confirmationToken'. The description adds zero semantic value over the bare type/required constraints in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action: apply an exact host routing plan, then verify and return rollback values. This distinguishes it from a planning tool like audio_route_plan, which likely generates the plan. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'host routing' means or what constitutes an 'exact' plan, leaving some ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling execute tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or whether it should follow a planning step (e.g., audio_route_plan). No alternatives or exclusions are given, so an agent gets no contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. It only states the non-mutating aspect (does not change the session) but omits whether it persists evidence, requires prior steps, returns a plan, or has side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with a nested evidence object and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It packs the core intent into a compact form. However, the terseness contributes to vagueness on key details, so it's not a 5 for structure despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, a nested evidence object, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain what 'bind' means operationally, when to use it, what evidence format is expected, or what the tool returns. The description leaves too much to guess for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (sessionFile, completedStage, evidence, home). An agent cannot infer what 'concise evidence' means or how to structure the evidence object beyond the schema's type/basic requirements. The description fails to add any parameter-level meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Bind completion of the current guided stage') and a constraint ('without changing the session'), which makes it distinguishable from execute-oriented siblings like audio_session_advance_execute. However, 'bind' is somewhat ambiguous and could mean record, validate, or schedule, so it's not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'without changing the session' implies this is a planning or non-mutating step, contrasting with execute tools, but it never explicitly says when to use it instead of alternatives or what prerequisites exist. Context from sibling names suggests a plan/execute pattern, but the description doesn't make this explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a boolean validation result but does not describe return format, error behavior, side effects, or what constitutes 'enough evidence.' It also doesn't clarify whether the tool is read-only or requires a specific environment. The description leaves critical operational details unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and target. There is zero redundancy or filler. The statement is compact and immediately conveys the core intent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite its simplicity, the tool deals with a complex domain (calibration artifacts, immutable evidence, deterministic offline replay). The description does not explain these terms, the required artifact format, or the validation criteria. Without additional context or an output schema, an agent cannot reliably call this tool. The description is too sparse for the level of domain-specific jargon.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'artifact' has no schema description (0% coverage), and the tool description merely says 'calibration artifact' without explaining the expected structure, required fields, or how it maps to the validation logic. The description does not compensate for the schema gap, leaving the agent to guess what to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('validate') and a clear target ('calibration artifact') with a defined condition ('enough immutable evidence for deterministic offline replay'). It distinguishes itself from generic validation tools like audio_artifact_validate by specifying the replay context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus similar validation or artifact tools. It lacks any indication of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would select this tool over alternatives. The description is purely declarative and assumes the agent knows when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the verification aspect and the restoration of microphone calibration if cleared, which is useful. However, it omits any information about side effects, required confirmation token behavior, or what happens on failure. The description offers only minimal insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and direct, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the main action ('apply and verify') and adds a conditional behavior in a single sentence. While it could benefit from more detail, it is efficient and appropriately concise for a tool that likely has a plan object as input.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (nested plan object, required confirmation token, and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not describe the plan structure, the format of the confirmation token, what 'verify' entails, or any prerequisites or failure handling. An agent would lack critical information to correctly invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters. The plan object is implied by the phrase 'configuration plan', but its structure is not described, and the confirmationToken and confirm fields are not mentioned at all. The description adds no value beyond what the schema already shows, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('apply and verify') and a clear resource ('REW audio configuration plan'), and adds a specific behavior (restoring microphone calibration). It clearly distinguishes this as an execution tool for configuration, as opposed to measurement or trace tools among siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool is used when you have an exact REW audio configuration plan to apply, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is purely implied from the phrase 'apply and verify' rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It conveys that this tool creates a plan rather than executing it, which is useful. But it does not explain what 'allowlisted hash-bound' means in practice, whether any persistent state is created, whether REW must be running, or what side effects occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes the crucial 'execute with' pointer. The phrasing is terse to the point of jargon, but it remains structurally efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three parameters, a nested object, an enum, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain how the required parameters produce a plan, what the return value is, or how the plan is consumed by the execute tool. The agent is left to infer critical workflow details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters, and it does not. None of the three parameters (processName, measurementIndices, parameters) are mentioned or clarified. The phrase 'hash-bound' does not map to any schema property and leaves the agent without usable parameter guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('create'), names the resource ('derived-trace plan'), and adds distinguishing details like 'allowlisted hash-bound' and the fact it is a compatibility alias. It clearly indicates this tool is for planning, not execution, which separates it from rew_generate_trace_execute. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling rew_generate_trace_plan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description tells the agent to pair this plan-creation step with rew_generate_trace_execute, which is a concrete usage instruction. It does not, however, state when to prefer this tool over rew_generate_trace_plan or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity for an agent navigating the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose safety, side effects, and process. It says 'preview and hash-bind' but never clarifies whether this mutates anything, whether it requires confirmation, or whether it is read-only. The phrase 'hash-bind' is jargon and unexplained, and 'exact' does not convey what happens to the file. An agent cannot infer the tool's behavioral profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single focused sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, and every word contributes to the purpose. Ideal brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema and zero annotations, the description is far too thin. It does not say what output the agent should expect (e.g., a plan, a hash, a confirmation), nor does it explain the process or any prerequisites. The 'plan' suffix suggests a planned action, but the description never states that it returns a plan for approval. Incomplete for reliable agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must provide parameter context. It does not explain what 'adapter' means beyond echoing the enum values, and 'filters' is only loosely referenced as 'filter-file change'. The structure of the filters array (type PK, frequencyHz, gainDb, q) is entirely undocumented in the description. The description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Preview and hash-bind') and a specific resource ('an exact Equalizer APO or dedicated CamillaDSP filter-file change'). It distinguishes this from the sibling 'audio_dsp_apply_execute' by implying this is a plan/preview step, and names the two adapter types directly. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audio_dsp_apply_execute or audio_dsp_adapter_capabilities. It does not mention that it is a planning step or any conditions that would select it over executing directly. The distinction is only implicit in the name 'plan'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait (does not emit audio) and indicates the action is 'safe', which is useful. However, it is silent on whether the tool mutates state, requires confirmation, or any side effects. Given it's an 'execute' tool, this leaves significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding a critical clarification about audio. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It doesn't explain what a 'guided session' is, what a 'safe next step' means, the purpose of the confirmation token, or how the plan parameter is structured. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides zero explanation of the three parameters (plan, confirm, confirmationToken). The agent has no way to understand what values to supply or what the parameters mean, especially the nested 'plan' object. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Open an exact guided session record and return its safe next step') and differentiates by explicitly stating it does not emit audio. This gives a clear purpose, though it does not name sibling tools or explain how it differs from similar execute tools like audio_session_advance_execute, so it is not fully distinguishing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a session plan must exist), nor does it reference sibling tools like audio_guided_session_plan or audio_session_advance_execute. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs regularization and requires held-out evaluation, but it omits critical behavioral details: what happens if heldOutMatrices are empty (default []), whether the tool is deterministic, computational cost, and what the output format is. The phrase 'require held-out-seat evaluation before acceptance' hints at a validation step but does not explain how rejection occurs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the primary action. It is concise with no wasted words, but the density makes it somewhat cryptic to nonexperts. Still, it is structured effectively for a technical audience.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex 6-parameter optimization tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is extremely thin. It fails to explain what the weights are for, how inputs are shaped (complex matrices), what 'acceptance' means, and what the return value is. The tool appears to be a core optimization step, yet the description gives no usage contract.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only hints at regularization (for 'regularization'), training matrices ('training seats', likely trainMatrices), targets (implicit), and held-out matrices ('held-out-seat'). It does not explain maxGainDb, iterations, or the complex number structure. Most parameters remain undocumented, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Solve') and a resource ('regularized complex multi-source weights'), and adds scope ('across training seats', 'held-out-seat evaluation'). It is clear enough to distinguish from the sibling 'audio_multisource_physical_optimize', though it does not name alternatives directly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies a prerequisite: 'require held-out-seat evaluation before acceptance' suggests held-out data must be supplied. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other optimization/analysis tools, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites for the input matrices.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only mentions bounded search and held-out verification. It does not state whether the tool mutates audio settings, is read-only, returns a report, or has important performance/state effects; 'physical' is also unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and key constraints. The hyphenated jargon 'Coordinate-search' and piled-up modifiers hurt readability slightly, but it remains economical.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a six-parameter tool with nested arrays, no output schema, and no annotations, one high-level sentence is insufficient. Missing are return value/format, side effects, relationship to audio_multisource_optimize, and the meaning of 'physical', so an agent cannot confidently predict the tool's full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description offers only high-level concepts such as gain, delay, polarity, crossover, training seats, and held-out verification. It does not clarify the required targets and frequenciesHz, matrix orientation, unit conventions, or how constraints map to the optimization, so it only partially compensates for the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific behavior: coordinate-searching over gain, delay, polarity, and crossover controls, with held-out verification. This identifies the tool's resource and purpose and loosely distinguishes it from the simpler-sounding sibling audio_multisource_optimize, though it never explains what 'physical' adds.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied by 'across training seats with held-out verification'—an agent can infer this is for multi-seat optimization with validation. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of audio_multisource_optimize or other alternatives, leaving routing partly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose a key property—'deterministic'—which suggests reproducibility given the same seed. However, it does not explain the algorithm, how the interval is computed, or any side effects (e.g., whether it modifies anything). It adds some transparency but not enough for a compute tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words; it conveys the core function efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. An agent needs to know what the output structure is, how seed affects results, the statistical interpretation, and any edge cases (e.g., minimum 2 values from schema but not mentioned). The description only covers the high-level purpose, leaving critical operational details missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (seed, trials, values). While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description provides no elaboration on their roles, defaults, or constraints. This is a significant gap for an agent that must decide appropriate values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('estimate') and a distinct resource ('repeatability and a deterministic bootstrap confidence interval from repeated scalar measurements'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like audio_uncertainty_budget or audio_uncertainty_monte_carlo, which focus on uncertainty but not repeatability. However, it could be clearer on what 'repeatability' precisely means or what the output looks like.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for repeated scalar measurements, but does not specify when a bootstrap approach is preferred over other statistical tools, nor any assumptions (e.g., normality, independence) required. An agent would have to infer that this is the right tool for computing repeatability confidence intervals.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that only provided evidence is used (the word 'only'), implying it does not rely on external data. However, it does not disclose side effects (none expected for a pure computation), required privileges, or the format of the result. For a compute-only tool this is acceptable but minimal, so a middle score is warranted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, grammatically tight sentence that front-loads the main action and result. It has no redundancy or filler. It could be longer to include usage or parameter details, but as written it is appropriately concise for the information it does provide.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters with zero required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. An agent cannot know what inputs are essential, what units are expected, what the returned 'correction floor' and 'permitted boost' look like, or any constraints. The description provides only a high-level summary and leaves substantial required context uncovered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not map to any specific parameters. Phrases like 'capability, headroom, compression, and limiter evidence' vaguely correspond to some parameters (e.g., continuousSplDb, headroomDb, compressionDb, limiterObserved) but are not explicit. Without per-parameter explanations, the agent cannot determine which values are required or how they influence the output. The description adds little beyond the schema's type constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Derive') and resource ('correction floor and permitted boost'), and specifies the input categories ('capability, headroom, compression, and limiter evidence'). It clearly conveys the tool's core function. However, it does not differentiate it from potential siblings like `audio_maximum_clean_output` or `rew_compression_analysis`, so it misses a distinct positioning among related audio analysis tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description merely states what it computes, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate. This is a critical gap given the large sibling list of audio assessment tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The tool is described as a calculation, which implies a read-only, pure function with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention any assumptions, edge cases, or error behavior. It does convey that it is a computation, which is a basic behavioral trait, but it omits any detail about what the output represents or how it might vary. For a benign calculation tool, a 3 is fair; it is not misleading but leaves behavioral aspects underspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the verb. It avoids fluff and gets to the point. It is efficiently written, though it could potentially include a bit more context without becoming verbose. Given that it's one sentence and clear, it earns a 4. It's not overly terse to the point of being unhelpful, but it could be slightly more informative without hurting conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the specialized nature of the tool, the lack of an output schema, and zero annotation coverage, the description is incomplete for an agent to understand what results to expect or how to interpret them. It does not explain what the calculated screen means, what range it might take, or how the redundancy penalty affects the result. The description provides the calculation concept but misses the practical context an agent needs to use the tool effectively. With only one sentence and no additional detail, it merits a 2. It is not completely useless, but it leaves substantial gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for documenting the parameters. It mentions 'modulation transfer factors and importance weights', which map loosely to the bands array elements, but it does not explain the meaning of centerFrequencyHz, nor does it mention the redundancyPenalty parameter at all. The description gives the conceptual basis but fails to clarify each parameter's role or units. Since it omits one parameter entirely and offers only partial semantics for others, it scores a 2. It adds some meaning but is far from comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Calculate' and the resource 'speech-transmission screen', and gives the derivation basis (IEC-60268-16-inspired). It also mentions the key inputs (modulation transfer factors and importance weights), which makes the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly contrast with any siblings, but among many audio analysis tools this stands out as the only one about speech transmission screening, so it's distinguishable enough. A 5 would require naming a sibling alternative, which it doesn't do, so 4 is appropriate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of use cases, exclusions, or relationships to similar tools like audio_transfer_quality or audio_room_metrics. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it. This is a clear gap for a tool with many siblings, so it scores a 2. It is not misleading, but lacks any directional guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds one useful behavioral note: 'audible operations require physical-readiness confirmation,' which alerts the agent to a required safety prerequisite. However, it does not explain other behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., whether execution is destructive or modifies system state), blocking behavior, or the nature of the returned data. The single disclosure is valuable but insufficient for a tool that executes a live plan, so a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose immediately. It avoids unnecessary words and is efficient. However, its brevity contributes to under-specification across other dimensions; it is concise but not optimally informative. The structure is clear and readable, earning a 4 for conciseness without penalizing for the lack of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This tool has a nested object (plan), four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, making it moderately complex. The description is far too thin to be complete: it does not explain the plan structure, the difference between confirm and audibleReady, the origin or format of confirmationToken, or what the execution returns or how it affects the environment. An agent operating from this description would struggle to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge, so completeness is low.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for explaining the four parameters (plan, confirm, audibleReady, confirmationToken). The description only hints at audible operations needing readiness, which maps to audibleReady and confirmationToken, but it does not explain the plan object structure, the confirm flag's role, or how confirmationToken is obtained or validated. This is a significant gap; the description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw schema names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Execute an exact live REW diagnostic plan.' It identifies the resource (a diagnostic plan) and the verb (execute), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling execute tools like rew_measurement_execute or rew_generate_trace_execute, but the specificity to 'REW diagnostic plan' provides a reasonable distinction, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when a diagnostic plan already exists ('Execute an exact live REW diagnostic plan'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others, nor does it mention prerequisites like calling rew_diagnostic_plan to create the plan. There is no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to prefer in alternative scenarios. This leaves the agent without explicit decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool restores REW state after execution and that it checks audible/readiness flags, which gives some insight into side effects and safety. However, it does not mention potential failures, permissions required, whether it is destructive, or what the output/result is. The 'protected' qualifier is vague. This is a partial but insufficient disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the mandatory flags are stated concisely. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex tool with 5 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain what a 'sweep plan' is, how to supply it, what each flag means, what the confirmationToken is for, or what the tool returns. It also lacks usage context relative to the many sibling tools. The description is grossly incomplete for an agent to invoke this tool correctly without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only hints at two concepts (audible confirmation and physical readiness) without mapping them to specific parameters (confirm, areaClear, micPlaced, confirmationToken). It does not explain the 'plan' object structure or the purpose of confirmationToken. This is inadequate compensation for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('exact protected sweep plan'), then lists follow-up actions (label, save, restore). It is clear what the tool does at a high level. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling measurement tools like rew_generate_trace_execute or rew_diagnostic_execute, so it loses a point for missing sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions mandatory audible confirmation and physical readiness flags, implying prerequisites, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what preparation is needed (e.g., a plan from rew_measurement_plan). No alternatives are named, and no exclusions are given. The guidance is purely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only analysis by saying 'analyze' and 'produce', but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it mention any error conditions, data assumptions, or side effects. The lack of an output schema and any behavioral hints leaves the agent under-informed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and output without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, a single but detailed parameter, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'exploratory directivity rows' are, what the CTA-2034 claim boundary means, how to provide angles, or any expectations about the response format. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the 'angles' parameter. Despite the schema being self-explanatory with typed fields like horizontalDeg and response, the description adds no semantic guidance on how to structure polar data or interpret the nested objects. The parameter semantics are entirely absent from the prose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Analyze' and the resource 'guided loudspeaker polar scans', and specifies the output 'produce exploratory directivity rows with a CTA-2034 claim boundary.' This uniquely identifies the tool's function among the sibling list, where no other tool handles polar analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives context that it operates on 'guided loudspeaker polar scans', implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. Given the sibling list has no direct competitors, this is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'validate' implies a read-only operation that flags issues, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies anything, whether it throws errors, or what the output format is. Without annotation support, this lack of explicit behavioral transparency is a meaningful gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then enumerates the specific checks performed. It contains no filler or redundant text, making it appropriately concise for the amount of information it conveys.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite a relatively simple top-level signature (one parameter), that parameter is a complex array of objects with many nested properties and no schema descriptions. The description does not explain the expected structure, the meaning of the validation flags, or what the response looks like (since there is no output schema). It also lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, leaving the tool incomplete for an agent to call correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the channels array or its nested properties. The tool description does not explain the meaning of fields like output, role, driverType, highPassHz, or lowPassHz, nor how they relate to the validation logic. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameter semantics wholly undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (validate), a specific resource (car-audio DSP channel map), and explicitly enumerates the three types of issues it flags (missing protective crossovers, duplicate outputs, invalid passbands). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling validation tools like audio_artifact_validate, which validates artifacts rather than channel maps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when validating a car-audio DSP channel map, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any constraints or prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, so the agent must infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions verification ('after verifying that the installed version exposes it') but does not clarify whether the tool mutates state, what 'hash-bound' implies, or whether it is read-only. The term 'change' could suggest mutation, but there is no explicit safety or side-effect disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is efficient with no wasted words, though the brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 annotation support, the description is incomplete. It does not explain 'hash-bound', what the plan returns, how the plan is used, or the meaning of 'exposes it'. Critical context for an agent to correctly plan and later execute is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (key, value, home). It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving an agent without guidance on what values to provide or their format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and clearly identifies the resource ('a hash-bound change for one JamesDSP key') and includes a distinguishing verification step. It differentiates from siblings like jamesdsp_key_execute (execute vs plan) and jamesdsp_preset_plan (key vs preset) without needing to open schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it is a planning step prior to execution (based on the 'plan' suffix and sibling jamesdsp_key_execute), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond verifying the version exposes the key.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key trait: 'without changing state,' indicating a non-mutating operation. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as whether it launches external processes, requires prerequisites, or can be safely run concurrently. The single disclosed trait is useful but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately lists the key resources checked. It is front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler or irrelevant detail. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not explain what 'check' involves (e.g., verifying existence, version, health), what the return format is, or what happens if any component is missing. With no output schema and no parameter explanation, the description leaves significant gaps in expected behavior and result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'home' with no description, and the description never mentions it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the parameter's purpose and optionality, but it does not. The description adds no semantic value for this parameter, leaving the agent without any guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Check' and lists specific resources: Node, workspace, REW, host audio, JamesDSP, and configured DSP adapters. It also clarifies that the action does not change state, distinguishing it as a read-only diagnostic. This is specific enough to identify the tool's purpose and differentiate it from more targeted siblings like jamesdsp_status or audio_host_inventory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions or recommend using it over siblings like audio_host_inventory or jamesdsp_status for a comprehensive status check. An agent must infer usage from the resource list alone, with no explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'preflight' which implies a read-only check, but it does not mention what the tool actually does (e.g., validates fields, checks consistency), whether it has side effects, or what it returns. The description is too vague to convey any meaningful behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. The action and purpose are front-loaded, making it easy to scan. It is appropriately short for the limited information it provides.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is expected to assess complex SOFA metadata, yet the description gives no information about expected metadata structure, specific checks performed, output format, or any error handling. There is no output schema to compensate, so the description is severely incomplete for an agent to understand what the tool does in detail or how to handle its result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the only parameter 'metadata' is a loosely typed object. The description adds the modifier 'HRTF/BRIR SOFA metadata', giving some context that the object should follow the SOFA specification, but it does not explain any required fields, structure, or constraints. This is insufficient for an agent to construct a valid input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'preflight' (validate) and the resource 'HRTF/BRIR SOFA metadata', and it provides context about the use case (before handing the HDF5 file to a maintained SOFA implementation). It is not a tautology and is distinct from siblings, though it could be more explicit about the validation aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear context for when to use the tool: before handing the HDF5 file to a maintained SOFA implementation. It implies a pre-processing step, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Still, the usage context is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main side effect (starting an executable) and the verification step (API readiness on port 4735), but omits details like failure behavior, blocking/timeout, or cleanup. It provides minimal but useful behavioral context, though not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the primary action and including the key verification outcome. No unnecessary words, and the structure is efficient. It earns a high score for parsimony.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. It omits what 'plan' contains, how confirmation is represented in parameters, and what happens if verification fails. The tool's complexity (launching an external process) demands more detail than provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. 'plan' (an object) is completely unexplained, 'confirm' and 'confirmationToken' are only loosely hinted at via 'explicit confirmation'. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving parameter meaning ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start the exact discovered REW executable') and the follow-up verification ('verify that the API becomes ready on port 4735'). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling list shows execution tools are distinct from planning tools (e.g., rew_launch_plan). However, 'exact discovered' is vague without prior context, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish from other execution siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'after explicit confirmation' implies a prerequisite (likely a confirmation token), suggesting this should be invoked only after prior approval. It does not name alternatives or when not to use it, such as referencing rew_launch_plan or rew_install_discover. Guidance is inferred rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the trace is 'bounded', but does not explain what bound means (e.g., length, time range, or point count), nor does it mention read-only status, side effects, or return format. This minimal disclosure is inadequate for a tool with no annotation fallback.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, and it avoids redundancy. The listing of trace types is efficient and adds value without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a moderate parameter set, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the 'bounded' nature, parameter roles, or the relationship to sibling trace tools. An agent would need to guess at id semantics and how to set ppo and smoothing correctly, making the description insufficient for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It lists the trace kinds (matching the enum) but does not explain 'id', 'ppo', or 'smoothing'. The term 'bounded' hints at limits but not how ppo or smoothing affect the result. This leaves critical semantic gaps that the schema also fails to fill.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Fetch') and the resource ('a bounded REW ... trace'), and enumerates the supported trace types (magnitude/phase, group-delay, distortion, RT60, impulse). This distinguishes it from siblings like rew_generate_trace (which creates traces) and rew_load_file (which loads files), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for retrieving existing traces rather than generating them, nor does it reference sibling tools like rew_generate_trace or rew_load_file. The agent must infer usage solely from the verb 'fetch', which is insufficient given the large sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool creates a plan (not a direct save) and is deprecated, but does not explain what 'hash-bound' means, side effects, prerequisites, or how the plan is consumed. This is minimal for an operation with a complex profile object.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the deprecation and names the execution counterpart. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though the unexplained 'hash-bound' term could confuse and costs a bit of clarity. Overall it earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the complexity of the nested profile object and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is very short. It does not explain the purpose of the plan, the meaning of 'hash-bound', or the overall save flow beyond separating plan and execution. Critical information for correctly invoking the tool is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the parameters. It does not mention 'profile' or 'home' at all, nor what they represent or how they relate to the 'hash-bound' plan. The schema provides structure but no semantic meaning, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool creates a speaker-profile save plan and directs execution to speaker_profile_save_execute. It clearly distinguishes itself from the execute tool, though it does not explicitly name speaker_profile_save_plan as the canonical alias. The term 'hash-bound' and the deprecation flag add some ambiguity but the core purpose is conveyed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description marks the tool as a 'deprecated compatibility alias', telling the agent to prefer newer alternatives, and specifies the two-step workflow (create plan, then execute). It does not explicitly say 'use speaker_profile_save_plan instead', but the deprecation and the pointer to the execute tool give clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but this is not explicitly stated, and the description doesn't disclose any behavioral constraints (e.g., freshness of sources, error conditions, or scope limitations). It adds minimal value beyond the name itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler. The key nouns ('authoritative sources' and 'exact claim boundaries') are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable. Nothing is redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is somewhat adequate but omits details about the return format, whether sources are cached or live, or how 'claim boundaries' are defined. The jargon may confuse agents, and this gap is not compensated by annotations or schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying what is listed (sources and claim boundaries), which is useful given no schema parameters exist to clarify behavior. There is no ambiguity about inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists 'authoritative sources and exact claim boundaries used by the analysis engine,' providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like audio_target_registry or audio_dataset_catalog, so the purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools are provided, leaving the agent without context for selecting this over similar registry/dataset tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key non-mutating trait ('without changing audio state'), which is valuable behavioral transparency. However, it does not mention whether other state (e.g., persisted plans) is modified, any permissions required, or what the returned plan looks like. The description is partially transparent but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and key constraint. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum conciseness without sacrificing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too brief. It does not explain 'hash-bound', describe parameters, indicate return values, or provide any operational context. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without further information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description provides zero parameter guidance. The schema itself includes some self-explanatory names (name, deviceClass, mode) but ambiguous ones like 'home' and 'targetId' are not clarified. Since the description fails to compensate for the low coverage, this dimension scores low.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and a resource ('hash-bound guided or expert calibration workflow'), which clearly establishes the tool's core purpose. It also distinguishes itself from execution tools by adding 'without changing audio state', which separates it from siblings like audio_guided_session_execute. However, the term 'hash-bound' is ambiguous and not explained, slightly reducing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is a planning tool (create a workflow) and emphasizes it does not change audio state, which indirectly indicates it should be used before an execution tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it earns a 3.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of exposing side effects. It explicitly discloses that the tool backs up the configuration, verifies the change, and automatically restores on failure—important behavioral context for a mutation tool. However, it omits details like what happens on success (persists), potential permission needs, or any other side effects, but the disclosed rollback mechanism is significant.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core workflow. It is appropriately concise, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the key steps). Overall, it is efficient and free of unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a plan object, confirmation token, and nested objects), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to construct or source the plan, what the confirm parameter does, or what the expected output/return value is (no output schema). The agent lacks crucial context to call this tool correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention 'plan', 'confirm', or 'confirmationToken' at all. The agent is left without any understanding of what the plan object should contain, what confirm does, or why a confirmation token is needed. This is a critical gap for a tool with required parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: back up JamesDSP, apply one exact key change, verify, and restore on failure. It uses a specific verb ('apply') and resource ('JamesDSP key change'), and the flow is unambiguous. The name 'key_execute' and mention of 'key change' distinguish it from preset-related siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it is for a single key change but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like jamesdsp_key_plan or jamesdsp_preset_execute. It does not mention alternatives or conditions that would route an agent to a different tool. The usage context is only inferred from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It clearly states the tool creates a plan, implying a non-destructive operation, but it does not specify whether it modifies any files, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects on existing plans. The behavior is only partially transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and the execution routing. There is no wasted verbosity or redundant information, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and poorly documented parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the generated plan contains, what the execution step entails, or any dependencies or return behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'file' or 'home' parameters. The phrase 'MDAT load plan' hints that 'file' is the MDAT file to load, but this is not explicit, and 'home' is entirely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action: 'create a hash-bound workspace MDAT load plan,' which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool rew_load_file_plan, which likely serves an identical role. The 'compatibility alias' label hints at redundancy but does not clarify how this tool differs, if at all.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a direct routing instruction: 'execute with rew_load_file_execute,' telling the agent to follow up with the execution tool. It lacks any guidance on when to choose this tool over rew_load_file_plan or when not to use it, nor does it mention prerequisites or context that would inform tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses one trait (does not write files) but omits other important behaviors such as whether the input is mutated, what the return value is, validation steps, error handling, or permissions. This is insufficient for a migration tool that could have side effects on the input object.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and includes the key behavioral constraint. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (nested object parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is significantly under-specified. It does not explain the migration process, expected input format, return value, or any constraints. An agent would lack sufficient information to call this tool correctly without further investigation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides zero description for the single 'artifact' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It only labels it as a 'legacy calibration artifact' without specifying its structure, required fields, or format. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's bare object type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action (Migrate), a clear resource (legacy calibration artifact), and a key outcome (to the current schema) with a distinguishing constraint (without writing files). It clearly differentiates from related tools like audio_artifact_validate or audio_artifact_create by specifying the migration intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for migrating legacy artifacts but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any conditions or preconditions. It mentions 'without writing files' but doesn't clarify when that behavior is desired or if there are alternative tools for actual file writes. Minimal guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Detect' suggests a read-only operation and the listed state categories clarify what is inspected, but it never explicitly states that no settings are modified, nor what happens if JDSP4Linux is absent or uninitialized.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence with no filler, and the main subject appears first. The long noun-phrase list is slightly awkward but remains information-dense and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, an agent cannot tell exactly how the reported state will be returned (JSON fields, process-exit codes, or text). The description names the state dimensions but omits return shape and failure behavior; for a zero-parameter status probe this is a noticeable but not critical gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no properties and context confirms 0 parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings because there are none to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a clear verb ('Detect') and resource (JDSP4Linux) and enumerates the specific state dimensions it returns: decode engine, master-bypass, EQ-module, runtime-sync, and active-preset identity. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like jamesdsp_snapshot, so some differentiation is missing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to call jamesdsp_status versus relatives such as jamesdsp_snapshot, jamesdsp_preset_plan/execute, or jamesdsp_key_plan/execute. The phrase 'Detect ... state' implies a status check, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses two useful traits: calibration preservation and hash-binding. However, it does not reveal side effects (e.g., file writes), preconditions (e.g., REW installation), or whether the operation is reversible. These gaps limit an agent's ability to predict outcomes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action and adds a key constraint. There is no filler or redundancy, making it appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a planning tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain how the plan is returned, how the hash works, or how to use the plan later. It also omits any prerequisites. For such a specialized tool, the description is incomplete for an agent to invoke it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it does not. The phrase 'input/output configuration' is too vague to clarify the meaning of individual parameters like inputDevice, outputChannel, or sampleRateHz. The description adds no specific parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'REW input/output configuration plan', and adds a specific qualifier 'hash-bound' and a preservation condition. This distinguishes it from execution tools like rew_audio_configure_execute, so an agent can understand its planning role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention that this plan precedes execution, nor does it reference prerequisites like device inventory. The planning/execution distinction is only implied by the word 'plan'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure—and it does so well. It reveals three important behaviors: a backup is taken before mutation, status is verified afterward, and the active configuration is automatically restored on failure. This gives the agent confidence in the tool's safety profile. It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't clarify what happens to the backup after success, what 'failure' precisely means, or how the confirmation flow interacts with the transaction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single 19-word sentence with zero padding. The core action ('back up... execute... verify') is front-loaded, and the safety guarantee (restore on failure) closes the sentence. Every clause earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The transactional flow is described, but critical operational details are missing: the required `confirmationToken` is never mentioned, the structure of the `plan` object is unspecified beyond 'preset load/save,' and there is no output schema or description of what the tool returns. For a tool requiring confirmation and handling state restoration, an agent would be guessing at the token format and response shape.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It partially does: 'preset load/save plan' gives meaning to the `plan` parameter. But it says nothing about `confirm` or the required `confirmationToken`—an agent has no way to know what token to supply or what the confirmation boolean gates. With three undocumented parameters and only one marginally explained, the compensation is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific action verbs—back up, execute, verify, restore—to describe a full transactional lifecycle for JamesDSP presets. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jamesdsp_status (status only), jamesdsp_snapshot (backup only), and jamesdsp_preset_plan (planning only) through its unique combination of actions, even though it doesn't name them explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'execute an exact preset load/save plan' signals that the caller should already possess a plan, presumably from a planning sibling like jamesdsp_preset_plan. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' guidance, no exclusions, and no warning against using it directly with an ad-hoc plan.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the scope across platforms and the optional path fallback, but does not disclose return format, error handling, side effects, or what happens when discovery fails. This is a significant gap for a discovery tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Both sentences are necessary and front-load the core purpose. There is no filler or redundancy; the description is tightly written and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but without an output schema, the description omits the return value (e.g., the path found), which an agent would need to know. The parameter behavior is covered, but output and error behavior are missing, leaving the description only partially complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description explains the single parameter as an explicit absolute executable path to use when automatic discovery fails. This adds meaning beyond the raw string type in the schema, providing both format and purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool finds a local REW installation across Windows, macOS, and Linux, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when needing to locate a REW installation) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools might be alternatives. It does give one usage condition for the optional parameter (when automatic discovery fails), which is helpful but not enough for a full usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of 'explicit configuration needed' hints at the output, but it does not explicitly state side effects (none expected), output format, or error behavior. It is minimally adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise, direct, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. There is no wasted content, and it conveys the essential scope immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description captures the essential purpose and what the user can expect (configuration details). It is complete enough for an inspection tool of this simplicity, though it would benefit from a brief note on the returned data structure, which is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and per calibration rules the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and there is nothing to explain. This score reflects that the description does not introduce confusion about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Inspect') and specifies the resource ('cross-platform DSP export/apply adapters') plus what it reveals ('explicit configuration needed for each'). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic capability tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling, so it is not a full 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as audio_capabilities or audio_dsp_apply_plan. There is no mention of contexts where this tool is preferred or not, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a two-step workflow—analyze, then verify against a measured trace—but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific preconditions. Some useful behavior is communicated, but a meaningful gap remains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two focused sentences, no wasted words. The primary analytical action is front-loaded, and the verification step adds meaningful scope without bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four parameters, no annotation coverage, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is too sparse. It omits prerequisites (e.g., loaded traces), what the tool returns, and how the parameters map to the analysis. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what mainId, subId, crossoverHz, or spanOctaves mean. It mentions 'crossover' generically, which hints at the role of crossoverHz, but the critical relationship between mainId/subId and the phase/summation analysis is left entirely to inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs ('Analyze', 'Verify') and names a distinct resource: phase agreement and predicted summation around a crossover, with verification against a measured combined trace. This clearly differentiates it from sibling analysis tools, none of which mention crossover behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied: use this tool when crossover phase agreement and summation need to be analyzed and verified. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that no sweep is emitted and that capture is bounded, which suggests a non-stimulus monitoring operation. However, it does not mention whether the tool saves data, requires confirmation, or has any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Both sentences earn their place: one states the core action, the other clarifies a key behavioral distinction.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description needed to explain what the capture returns and how confirm/durationMs are intended to be used. It does neither, leaving the agent to infer too much for a standalone tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to clarify the parameters. 'Bounded period' is a weak hint for durationMs, but confirm is not addressed at all, and no value is added beyond the schema's names/defaults/ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Capture') and resource ('microphone input levels') over a bounded period. The clause 'This emits no sweep' explicitly distinguishes it from sweep-based sibling tools like rew_measurement_execute and rew_generate_trace.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'emits no sweep' phrase implies this is for level checks rather than full measurements, but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no direct guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly lists several behaviors: enforcing a byte ceiling, verifying a pinned upstream checksum, calculating SHA-256, writing a provenance receipt, and not overwriting files. This goes beyond a simple mutation note. However, it omits error handling (e.g., checksum mismatch behavior) and the nature of the receipt, so it is not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, dense sentence that leads with the core action and then lists supplementary steps. It is concise and front-loaded, with no filler. The only minor issue is that the enumeration of actions makes it slightly run-on, but it remains efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description must compensate. It fails to describe parameter semantics (especially confirmationToken and confirm), does not state what the tool returns (only that it writes a receipt), and lacks error behavior. For a tool with two required parameters and a multi-step process, this is insufficient for an agent to call it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description provides minimal parameter context. It implies 'plan' contains the artifact details, but it does not explain the required 'confirmationToken' parameter, the optional 'confirm' boolean, or the structure of 'plan'. The meaning of 'confirm' and 'confirmationToken' (likely safety gates) is left entirely to inference, which is inadequate for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's primary action (download one exact planned dataset artifact) followed by specific verification and receipt steps (enforce byte ceiling, verify checksum, calculate SHA-256, write provenance receipt). This distinguishes it from sibling planning tools like audio_dataset_download_plan, and the resource 'planned dataset artifact' ties it to the plan tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after a plan has been made ('planned dataset artifact') and names the 'execute' action, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it (e.g., before a plan exists, or for catalog browsing). No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait — that nothing is executed/run, implying a non-destructive read. However, it does not state prerequisites (e.g., REW must be actively running for 'live' surfaces), what the returned surface data looks like, or any error/availability behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tightly-written sentence that front-loads the core action and scope, then adds the distinguishing 'without running them' clause. Zero filler — every word earns its place, and the constraining trait is stated up front.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter capability-introspection tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and names the surfaces (SPL, RTA, stepped-measurement, generator). Yet it leaves ambiguity about what an agent actually receives back and what 'live' presupposes (REW running), so completeness is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, so with an empty schema the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to document, and the text makes no parameter claims. Schema coverage is trivially 100%, and no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Read') tied to a concrete resource (live REW SPL, RTA, stepped-measurement, and generator command surfaces) and clarifies the non-executing nature with 'without running them', which distinguishes it from rew_diagnostic_execute. However, 'command surfaces' is mildly abstract and it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'without running them' implies this is the read-only capability probe used before executing (contrasting with rew_diagnostic_execute and rew_diagnostic_plan), so the usage is implied. But no alternative is explicitly named and no exclusion conditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer when to choose this tool over its many REW siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'this never applies filters', signaling non-mutating behavior. It also says 'conservative cut-first', indicating a preference. However, it does not disclose whether it saves state, reads a trace by ID, or returns a specific structure—minor gaps given the read-only nature implied by 'proposal'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The main purpose comes first, followed by a crucial behavioral note. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits explanations of most parameters (deviceClass, bands, lowHz, highHz, etc.) and does not describe the return format of the 'suggestions'. An agent would not know how to correctly set parameters or interpret the output, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the trace ID ('from a live REW trace') and for boost/cut parameters ('cut-first' implies limits on boosts). Yet it does not explain 'deviceClass', 'bands', frequency ranges, or how maxCutDb/maxBoostDb interact. This is partial compensation, insufficient for full semantic understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Create'), a resource ('parametric EQ suggestions'), and a context ('from a live REW trace'), plus a key disambiguator ('never applies filters'). This clearly distinguishes it from filter-application tools like audio_eq_design_plan or audio_filter_export. The phrase 'conservative cut-first' adds further specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies usage (when you want suggestions rather than applied filters) via 'never applies filters', and 'from a live REW trace' hints at a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state conditions for choosing this over siblings. No 'use X instead' guidance is given, leaving some inference required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key non-mutating behavior ('without changing anything'), which is valuable. However, it does not mention what happens if JamesDSP is not running, whether it can fail, or what specific format the fingerprint output takes. The non-mutation guarantee is prominent but other behavioral aspects remain undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-structured sentence that directly states the purpose and the non-destructive guarantee. No unnecessary words or repetition. The essential constraint is placed early, making it immediately actionable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the key outcome (identifying preset and EQ/bypass state). However, since there is no output schema, it would be more complete if it hinted at the structure of the returned fingerprint. This minor gap keeps it from a perfect score, but the tool itself is simple and the description suffices for most use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and simply focuses on the operation. No parameter explanation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (fingerprint and identify), the resource (live JamesDSP configuration), and the specific outputs (active preset and effective EQ/bypass state). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'without changing anything,' which sets it apart as a read-only snapshot tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jamesdsp_status or jamesdsp_preset_plan. There is no mention of scenarios where this snapshot is preferred, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is purely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'without changing routing,' which is a critical behavioral guarantee for a read tool. It does not mention other behavioral aspects (e.g., latency, privileges needed, or whether it caches results), but for a simple read with no params, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key caveat. No wasted words and appropriately sized for a simple read operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter read tool, the description provides enough to call it correctly: it identifies what will be read (host audio devices and defaults) and the side-effect guarantee (no routing changes). It could elaborate on return format, but with no output schema an agent might expect more detail; still, the core context is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is 100% covered. Per guidelines, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('host audio devices and defaults'), and an explicit non-mutation guarantee. It is clear what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools like rew_audio_inventory or audio_workspace_scan, which could also list audio devices, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (host-level hardware read) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusion cases. With no annotations and a large sibling set, a clearer when-to-use note would improve the score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies read-only nature by mentioning 'read-only command surfaces' but does not explicitly state the tool itself is non-destructive or safe. It also omits potential prerequisites (e.g., active REW connection) or what happens if REW is unavailable. These are meaningful gaps for a discovery tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the key action and target. Every word contributes to understanding, with no filler or repetition. It is concise and structured for quick consumption.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
As a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the core purpose but lacks details about expected output format, failure modes, or prerequisites (like needing a live REW session). For an agent to use this effectively in a workflow, some indication of what the response looks like or conditions for success would be helpful. The description is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is effectively complete (100% coverage as there are no properties). The description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose, which is unnecessary for parameter semantics but appropriate. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to elaborate further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Detect'), resource ('live REW API/version'), and scope ('supported read-only command surfaces'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on capability negotiation rather than execution or analysis, making it unique among the many REW-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a temporal usage context ('before a workflow uses them') but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. It implies it is a preliminary discovery step, but no exclusions or sibling references are provided. For a capability negotiation tool, the when-to-use guidance is partial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It honestly frames the output as a geometry-only estimate rather than a measured result, and it warns that acoustic measurements take precedence. This makes side effects and accuracy expectations reasonably transparent, though it does not detail output units or coordinate-system assumptions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, both informative and front-loaded. The first states the core action and scope, and the second adds an important limitation. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for tool selection but leaves gaps for invocation: it never explains the output shape of the delay map, units of delay, or the meaning of geometry coordinates. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, these omissions matter, though the core purpose is still adequately covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the three parameters. It only hints that geometry matters ('geometry-only') and does not explain listener, speakers, or speedOfSoundMps semantics, units, or how they interact. An agent would have to rely on parameter names and schema structure alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and a clear resource ('geometry-only initial delay map for car speakers'). It also distinguishes itself from acoustic-measurement tools by noting that such measurements supersede this estimate, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies this is a preliminary, fallback tool to use when acoustic measurements are not yet available, since 'acoustic measurements supersede this estimate.' It does not name an explicit alternative sibling or state a hard when-not-to-use rule, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'without changing anything', indicating a read-only operation. This is a valuable behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential side effects like requiring REW to be running or whether the inspection could be slow. Still, it covers the most critical behavior (non-destructiveness).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence that concisely states the action and scope. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff. It is highly efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless inventory tool, the description is fairly complete. It lists exactly what is inspected and emphasizes non-destructiveness. However, it does not specify the return format or output content, relying on the reader to infer that inspection yields a summary. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on what the agent can expect would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously true). Per guidelines, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none, and it correctly implies no input is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and names explicit resources: 'REW driver, devices, channels, sample rate, and microphone calibration'. This clearly distinguishes it from general inventory tools like audio_host_inventory by scoping to REW-specific audio configuration. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternative tools. It does not mention that this should be used over audio_host_inventory or rew_probe, nor does it name any alternatives. Given the many siblings, an agent lacks direction on selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'without downloading anything,' which signals a non-mutating operation, and lists the data returned. It does not mention error conditions or performance, but for a straightforward listing tool, this is sufficient context beyond the basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence. It leads with the action and resource, then lists the specific return fields, and ends with the key behavioral caveat. No fluff or redundancy – every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description enumerates the exact output fields (DOI, institution, license, measurement metadata, pinned artifact size, checksum) and clarifies the non-downloading behavior. It lacks explicit mention of scope (e.g., global vs. workspace-specific) or ordering, but for a catalog listing tool, the essential details are present. This is nearly complete given the simplicity of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to explain. Per the rubric, 0 params merits a baseline of 4. The description correctly focuses on the output content rather than parameters, and the empty schema already conveys that no arguments are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('curated independent audio datasets') and enumerates the metadata fields (DOI, institution, license, etc.). It explicitly notes 'without downloading anything,' which distinguishes it from the sibling download tools (audio_dataset_download_plan/execute). This makes the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'without downloading anything' implies a read-only browsing use case, clearly setting context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like audio_dataset_download_plan or audio_artifact_validate, nor does it state when NOT to use this tool. The context is clear, but exclusions are absent, 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.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/daredoole/audio-calibration-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server