audio_fir_design

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.