audio_polar_characterization

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.