rew_direct_late_analysis

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the purpose. It doesn't indicate whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it modifies data, or any side effects. The phrase 'without treating the chosen gate as universal' hints at a non-default behavior, but it's vague and doesn't clarify operational 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, concise sentence with no fluff, which is good for conciseness. However, it lacks structure and does not front-load critical information like usage context or parameter hints. The sentence earns its place but is insufficient for a tool with 8 parameters, making it incomplete rather than appropriately sized.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain inputs, outputs, algorithmic behavior, or any operational context. An agent would need to infer everything from parameter names and defaults, which is risky. The description fails to provide necessary context for correct invocation.

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 does not mention any of the 8 parameters or their meaning. It references 'direct-window' and 'later reflected' which loosely map to directWindowMs and lateWindowMs, but it doesn't explain parameter roles, units, or relationships. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving agents to guess parameter semantics.

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 states a clear, specific action: separating direct-window and later reflected impulse energy. It differentiates from other analysis tools by focusing on a methodological nuance ('without treating the chosen gate as universal'), which helps distinguish it from generic impulse or crossover analyses. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the tool name or the resource type (e.g., impulse response), relying on context.

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 or when to avoid it. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or sibling tools. The only hint is the methodological caveat, but it doesn't explain when this analysis is appropriate. An agent would have no basis to choose this over similar analysis tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.