audio_room_metrics

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.