rew_audio_inventory

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.

Is 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.

Given 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.

Does 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.