audio_room_spatial_summary

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

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, 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.